591 So. 2d 783 - State v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[s]tatements made for purposes of medical treatment and medical diagnosis in connection with treatment and describing medical history ... insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment or diagnosis in connection with treatment.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors

2. “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Johnson · 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors

3. “The use of hearsay history of the case as told to the physician by the patient may be admissible if received not to show the truth of the facts stated but only the basis for his opinion, but all hearsay history not necessary to this diagnosis is inadmissible. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of abuse, the physician's testimony before a jury of the facts recited to him by one he examines or treats has often been limited by various judicial rules. These sometimes vary in application, for instance, according to whether the physician was treating the patient (to whom the patient might be expected to tell the truth in order to get well) or was one employed for the purpose of litigation, or according to whether the patient told the facts to the doctor immediately after the occurrence or at an interval later, according to whether the facts at issue concern an external cause of the injury or condition as contrasted with a symptom or progress of the condition. . . . . In the present case, this complex and sensitive issue was properly raised by the objection at the trial. However, in brief in this court counsel does not rely upon it. For this latter reason, as well as because the thirteen lines of history-testimony were not so significant a part of the expert's entire testimony and because the trial judge so heavily cautioned the jury as to the limited purpose of this testimony, we do not feel that the issue is raised here so as to constitute reversible error.”

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