167 N.J. Super. 296 - State v. Lungsford’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2015
20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Graham · Slocovich v. Orient Mutual Insurance · 78 N.J. Super. 294 - Fagan v. City of Newark · Mahoney v. Minsky · United States v. Shiver
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. that one of the critical circumstances importing reliability is the fact that the informant whose declaration is so recorded is under a duty, in the context of the activity in which the record is made, to make an honest and truthful report. Thus, the business record exception is predicated not only on the circumstance that the record itself is kept in the usual course of the business but also on the circumstance that the recorded information is obtained by the recorder from a declarant having a “business” duty to communicate it truthfully. [M]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] police record is admissible to prove, for example, that a report of crime was made by a member of the public and when the report was made and received.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the declarant is not available to testify and if the statement is not admissible under some other exception to the hearsay rule, such as excited utterance or dying declaration, then admissibility cannot be predicated exclusively upon the circumstance that the statement was made to a police officer who paraphrased its content in his report. [Id. at 309, 400 A.2d at 849 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holcomb v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.