753 So. 2d 121 - McElroy v. Perry’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. “[A]dmissibility of all such [opinions and diagnoses] is not assured. First, where indications of lack of trustworthiness are shown, which may result from a lack of expert qualifications or from a lack of factual support, exclusion is warranted. Moreover, inclusion of opinions or diagnoses within the rule only removes the bar of hearsay. In the absence of the availability of the expert for explanation and cross-examination, the court may conclude that probative value of this evidence is outweighed by the danger that the jury will be misled or confused. This concern is particularly significant if the opinion involves difficult matters for interpretation and a central dispute in the case, such as causation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shorter v. State · 836 So. 2d 1129 - Bradley v. Brotman

2. “Had he [the expert] not testified, the lack of opportunity for voir dire and cross-examination together with the fact that the report was prepared solely for litigation would, without question, render the admission of his report an abuse of discretion, [footnote omitted]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shorter v. State · 836 So. 2d 1129 - Bradley v. Brotman

3. “Not all records regularly made by a business are admissible. A requirement of minimum reliability of a record is contained in section 90.803(6) which states that when the “sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness” business records are not admissible.... Whenever a record is made for the purpose of preparing for litigation, its trustworthiness is suspect and should be closely scrutinized. Reports of expert witnesses who are retained for the purpose of litigation are usually inadmissible under section 90.803(6) because such reports lack the trustworthiness that is presumed to exist with most business records.”

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