Cardin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'While the most commonly encountered witness today may be a person in authority of the record-keeping department of the business, he or she is not the only witness who can provide the necessary foundation for admission of a business record. This foundation can be established by anyone who possesses, with respect to the particular document in question the knowledge of the ... [required foundational elements]. This could be the entrant, the entrant's supervisor, co-workers, a records custodian or any other such person. What we demand is not a witness with a formalistic title but one with a functional understanding of the record-keeping process of the business with respect to the specific entry, transaction or declaration contained in the document.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Payne v. State · Cobb v. State

2. “To our knowledge, this state had not adopted the approach taken by the federal courts which would permit the admission of business records based upon circumstantial evidence derived from the document itself, without the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness.... Neither are we aware of any catch-all exception in Indiana, similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(2j.) [now Rule 807] which would allow a trial judge in the exercise of discretion to consider the inherent trustworthiness of the entry and the nature of the business which produced it.”

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

3. “[iImperative declarations, such as orders or instructions, which by their nature can be neither true nor false, cannot be offered for their truth.... Since there is no need to cross-examine the declarant of an imperative statement other than to determine whether the statement was in fact made, these utterances ordinarily fall outside the purview of the hearsay rule.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Phillips