Gruzen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Berry v. State (1986), Earl v. State (1981)
114 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Weeks v. United States · Drope v. Missouri · Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any statement made by a person during examination or treatment shall be admissible as evidence only to the extent permitted by the Uniform Rules of Evidence, but only if such statement is constitutionally admissible. Ark. R. Evid. 503(b) provides: A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing his medical records or confidential communications made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of his physical, mental or emotional condition, including alcohol or drug addiction, among himself, physician or psychotherapist, and persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the physician or psychotherapist, including members of the patient’s family. (d) Exceptions: (2) Examination by order of court. If the court orders an examination of the physical, mental, or emotional condition of a patient, whether a party or a witness, communications made in the course thereof are not privileged under this rule with respect to the particular purpose for which the examination is ordered unless the court orders otherwise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Randleman v. State“The fact that there was a great potential for prejudice in the court's failure to rule on the issue may be easily demonstrated, if the mere failure to make a ruling cannot be said to be prejudicial in and of itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robertson 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.