Moss v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When the wording of a Section is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 31 So. 3d 417 - Erdey v. Progressive Security Insurance Co. · 997 So. 2d 774 - Phillips v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.

2. “(a) When the communication relates to the health condition of a patient who brings or asserts a personal injury claim in a judicial or worker's compensation proceeding. (b) When the communication relates to the health condition of a deceased patient in a wrongful death, survivorship, or worker's compensation proceeding brought or asserted as a consequence of the death or injury of the deceased patient. (c) When the communication is relevant to an issue of the health condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the patient is a party and relies upon the condition as an element of his claim or defense or, after the patient's death, in any proceeding in which a party deriving his right from tire patient relies on the patient's health condition as an element of his claim or defense. (d) When the communication relates to the health condition of a patient when the patient is a party to a proceeding for custody or visitation of a child and the condition has a substantial bearing on the fitness of the person claiming custody or visitation, or when the patient is a child who is the subject of a custody or visitation proceeding. (e) When the communication made to the health care provider was intended to assist the patient or another person to commit or plan to commit what the patient knew or reasonably should have known to be a crime or fraud. (f) When the communication is made in the course of an examination ordered by the court with respect to the health condition of a patient”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility of Holy Family, Inc.

3. “In light of the significant policy reasons supporting the legislatively established health care provider-patient privilege and the constitutional dimensions of the privacy expectations protected thereby, the burden is on the party seeking to overcome the privilege to establish the propriety of disclosure. In light of those same considerations, the privilege should not be subject to casual breach by every litigant in single-minded pursuit of the last piece of evidence which may marginally contribute to his or her case. There should be a substantial showing of relevance and need, i.e. lack of ability to obtain the evidence elsewhere, by the party seeking disclosure. Further, any exception to the privilege should be narrowly tailored and should extend only to information necessary and relevant to the condition relied on as a defense or claim. In other words, it is “proper” to disregard the privilege only to the limited extent necessary to access information which is directly related to determining the truth.... In fashioning a remedy, there are numerous tools available to the courts, including in camera inspections, excising highly personal and/or irrelevant matters, or allowing depositions limited to specific relevant questions. What is to be avoided is unbridled evaluation of one’s complete medical records.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martin v. Lafon Nursing Facility of Holy Family, Inc.