Sluka v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “knew or understood that her statements identifying Sluka were important to her treatment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Martha v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVS. · Martha S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services

2. “The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule. ... Statements made for purposes 'of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.”

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

3. “Statements made to facilitate medical diagnosis and treatment are likely to be truthful and reliable because declarants are unlikely to fabricate where their own health and wellbe-ing is at stake; and a fact reliable enough to serve as a basis for diagnosis and treatment is also reliable enough to escape hearsay proscription.”

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