State v. Link’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 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. “The underlying rationale for the hearsay rule is for the purpose of securing the trustworthiness of the assertions. State v. Harris, 620 S.W.2d 349, 355 (Mo.banc 1981). Courts generally exclude hearsay because the out-of-court statement is not subject to cross-examination, is not offered under oath, and the fact-finder is not able to judge the declar-ant’s demeanor and credibility as a witness. Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc., 891 S.W.2d 117, 120 (Mo.banc 1995). However, to the extent that a declarant “is available for live testimony under oath, the ‘dangers of hearsay are largely non-existent.’ ” State v. Schaal, 806 S.W.2d 659, 664 (Mo.banc 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 976 , 117 L.Ed.2d 140 (1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McClanahan

2. “[a]n expert witness may testify that he disagrees with the scientific conclusions reached by another expert witness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Potter v. Hy-Vee, Inc.

3. “made a conscious choice not to open the door to any evidence as to [Link's] personality disorders, or mental makeup,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Link v. Luebbers