State v. Mendez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While some jurisdictions retain a two-part test for determining admissibility, several others including New Mexico regard the "pertinence" rationale to be independently sufficient to establish trustworthiness and admissibility under Rule 11-803(D). Compare 4 Michael H. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence § 808:4, at 175-78 (6th ed.2006) (citing jurisdictions that impose traditional two-part requirement), with State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (" '[UJnlike the common law rule, [Rule 11-803(D)] does not require inquiry into the patient's motive in making the statement, so long as the statements were relied upon by the physician." (quoting State v. Altgilbers, 109 N.M. 453, 460 , 786 P.2d 680, 687 (Ct.App.1989))); Esperansa M., 1998 NMCA 039 [ 1998-NMCA-039 ], 1 14, 124 N.M. 735 , 955 P.2d 204 ("[This Court and our Supreme Court have relied on the foundation established by the party seeking to admit the hearsay testimony that testimony is admissible if it is 'reasonably pertinent' for medical diagnosis or treatment." (citing State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 8 , 908 P.2d 231, 238 (1995), abrogation recognized by State v. Granillo-Macias, 2008-NMCA-O021, 148 N.M. 455 , 176 P.3d 1187 ); Altgilbers, 109 N.M. at 459-60 , 786 P.2d at 686-87 ; and Graham, supra § 808:4, at 178 ("A third group of jurisdictions does not require a specific showing of motive; rather, they inquire whether the subject-matter of the declar-ant's statement was reasonably pertinent ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Lonnie C. Mclaury v. The State of Wyoming

2. “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Skinner

3. “is that if a statement is pertinent to a medical condition, such that a medical care provider reasonably relies upon it in arriving at a diagnosis or treatment, the statement is deemed sufficiently reliable to overcome hearsay concerns. Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941, 951 (4th Cir.1988) (Powell, J., concurring in part and dissent ing in part [footnote omitted] ) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lonnie C. Mclaury v. The State of Wyoming