Berkowitz v. Simone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the admission need not be based upon personal knowledge if the circumstances indicate that the declarant adopted the hearsay matter and that it was not a mere opinion or a legal conclusion but a matter of fact. Randall v. Holmes, 69 R.I. 41 , 31 A.2d 17 ; Salvitti v. Throppe, 343 Pa. 642 , 23 A.2d 445 , 138 A.L.R. 842 ; Lambros v. Coolahan, 185 Md. 463 , 45 A.2d 96 ; 4 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed.), § 1053, p. 12; 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 272 a and b, p. 700. The defendant here may be reasonably held to have adopted the hearsay matters of fact involved in both the Debbie and Carmen incidents when she did not then deny that Tippy was her dog. By voluntarily expressing her personal sorrow at each incident and especially her regret that she had not disposed of Tippy after he had bitten Debbie, she indicated her knowledge of and responsibility for his behavior.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ross v. Hanson

2. “It further appeared that several months before Tippy had bitten Debbie Shapiro, a seven-year-old girl. On that occasion defendant told Debbie's mother she was sorry her dog had bitten Debbie. Defendant did not see her dog bite either girl, but obtained knowledge of each incident from what she had been told. In holding defendant's statements admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule the court said”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ross v. Hanson

3. “she was sorry her dog had bitten Carmen and that she should have gotten rid of it when it bit Debbie.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ross v. Hanson