Nagle v. Hooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although arguably the parent who pursuant to court order has custody of a child could qualify as a “previously appointed guardian” under section 9 — 109(c), it is patent that such custodial parent has a conflict of interest in acting on behalf of the child in asserting or waiving the privilege of nondisclosure. We believe that it is inappropriate in a continuing custody “battle” for the custodial parent to control the assertion or waiver of the privilege of nondisclosure. Keeping in mind “the best interest of the child,” we believe the appointment of an attorney to act as the guardian of the child in the instant matter is required. Furthermore, the appointment of a neutral third party would eliminate the very real possibility, as may exist in this case, of one of two warring parents exercising the power of veto for reasons unconnected to the polestar rule of “the best interests of the child.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 127 Md. App. 1 - Auclair v. Auclair · 780 So. 2d 301 - Attorney Ad Litem for DK v. Parents of DK

2. “"(b) Privilege generally. — Unless otherwise provided, in all judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings, a patient or the patient’s authorized representative has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from disclosing: (1) Communications relating to diagnosis or treatment of the patient; or (2) Any information that by its nature would show the existence of a medical record of the diagnosis or treatment. (c) Appointment of guardian. — If a patient is incompetent to assert or waive this privilege, a guardian shall be appointed and shall act for the patient. A previously appointed guardian has the same authority.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 98 Md. App. 289 - Kovacs v. Kovacs · Fox v. Wills

3. “Unless otherwise provided, in all judicial, legislative, or administrative proceedings, a patient or his authorized representative has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from disclosing, communications relating to diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional disorder.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 128 Md. App. 79 - Fisher v. State · 98 Md. App. 289 - Kovacs v. Kovacs