State v. Garlick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The question here presented is whether evidence represented by the hospital chart contains a sufficient guarantee of its truthfulness. We are of the opinion that it does. It is a record required by the hospital authorities to be made by one whose duty it is to correctly make the entries therein contained. So far as the hospital is concerned, there could be no more important record than the chart which indicates the diagnosis, the condition, and treatment of the patients. This record is one of the important advantages incident to hospital treatment, for it not only records for the use of the physician or surgeon what he himself observes during the time he is with the patient, but also records at short intervals the symptoms, condition, and treatment of the patient during the whole time of the physician’s absence. Upon this record the physician depends in large measure to indicate and guide him in the treatment of any given case. Long experience has shown that the physician is fully warranted in depending upon the reliability and trustworthiness of such a record. It is difficult to conceive why this record should not be reliable. There is no motive for the person whose duty it is to make the entries, to do other than record them correctly and accurately. On the other hand, there is the strongest reason why he should: First, because of the great responsibility, he knowing that the treatment of the patient depends largely upon this record, and if it be incorrect it may result, a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hall v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. · 775 So. 2d 258 - Baber v. State

2. ““The mere fact that a document is part of a hospital record made in the ordinary course of the hospital’s business, and may therefore be admissible under the hearsay rule, does not ipso facto make its admission comply with the confrontation requirement.... We have here not the routine record of a person’s birth, or death, or body temperature, nor any other similar statement of fact or condition objectively ascertained, generally reliable and normally undisputed, and free from any motive to record falsely. We are dealing with the opinions of supposed expert witnesses, who, in this document, are giving testimony not only as to appellant’s mental condition, but, more importantly, as to whether or not he is criminally responsible.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 76 Md. App. 654 - Ward v. State · Rollins v. State

3. “(b) Admissibility.—A writing or record made in the regular course of business as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove the act, transaction, occurrence or event. (c) Time of making records.—The practice of the business must be to make such written records of its acts at the time they are done or within a reasonable time afterwards. (d) Lack of knowledge of maker.—The lack of personal knowledge of the maker of the written notice may be shown to affect the weight of the evidence but not its admissibility.[ 17 ]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hall v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp. · 111 Md. App. 577 - Hickey v. Kendall