State v. Buda’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “N.J.R.E. 801(c) defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted!,]” and N.J.R.E. 802 starkly explains that “[h]earsay is not admissible except as provided by [the Evidence Rules ] or by other law.” Stated differently, “the hearsay rule applies when a declaration is offered to prove the truth of the statement attributed to the declarant.” State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 152 [ 801 A.2d 221 ] (2002). The opposite also holds: “if evidence is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the evidence is not hearsay and no exception to the hearsay rule is necessary to introduce that evidence at trial.” Ibid, (citation omitted). [ Buda, supra, 195 N.J. at 292, 949 A.2d 761 .]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sweet · State v. Coder

2. “(1) the amount of time that transpired between the initial observation of the event and the subsequent declaration of the statement; (2) the circumstances of the event; (3) the mental or physical condition of the declarant; (4) the shock produced; (5) nature of the statement; and (6) whether the statement was made voluntarily or in response to a question. [ Buda, supra, 195 N.J. at 294 , 949 A.2d 761 (citation omitted).]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Belliard · State v. Basil

3. “As we have, explained before, the purpose of Title Nine of the New Jersey Statutes is to provide for the protection of children under 18 years of age who have had serious injury inflicted upon them by other than accidental means. The safety of the children served shall be of paramount concern. It is the intent of this legislation to assure that the lives of innocent children are immediately safeguarded from further injury and possible death and that the legal rights of such children are fully protected. [State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278, 306 , 949 A.2d 761 (2008) (quoting State v. P.Z., 152 N.J. 86, 96-99 , 703 A.2d 901 (1997) (quoting N.J.S.A 9:6-8.8) (internal quotation marks and editing marks omitted)).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. R.D.