239 Ga. App. 237 - Ledford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a manufacturer would have no interest in proclaiming that the product contained such 'a substance if in fact it did not”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Reemer v. State · Forler v. State

2. “While we agree with appellant that a manufacturer might have devious reasons for failing to advise the public of the dangers of its product, the converse is not true. A label including (rather than excluding) a hazardous substance is inherently trustworthy, in that a manufacturer would have no interest in proclaiming that the product contained such a substance if in fact it did not. However, our holding is limited strictly to the presence of a hazardous substance, and not to its quantity or quality. The trial court was thus entitled to take judicial notice that the public relies on the dangers and antidotes listed on a label as a matter of common knowledge, and to conclude that the label was generally used and relied on as accurate in the course of a business within the meaning of the compilation exception to the hearsay rule of Evidence Code section 1840.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Forler v. State

3. “Evidence of a statement, other than an opinion, contained in a tabulation, list, directory, register, or other published compilation is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the compilation is generally used and relied upon as accurate in the course of a business ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Forler v. State