5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 32 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Meeboer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Meeboer Anchor | green | “rationale for mre 803(4) is the existence of (1) the self-interested motivation to speak the truth to treating physicians in order to receive proper medical care, and (2) the reasonable necessity of the statement to the diagnosis and treatment of the patient.” | 9 |
| 2 | People v. Arenda | green | “inquiries into sex histories, even when minimally relevant, carry a danger of unfairly prejudicing and misleading the jury.” | 7 |
| 3 | People v. Hackett | green | “in exercising its discretion, the trial court should be mindful of the significant legislative purposes underlying the rape-shield statute and should always favor exclusion of evidence of a complainant's sexual conduct where its exclusion would not unconstitutionally abridge the…” | 6 |
| 4 | People v. Adair | green | “is usually irrelevant as impeachment evidence because it has no bearing on character for truthfulness.” | 5 |
| 5 | People v. Arenda | green | “evidence of the victim's sexual conduct with persons other than defendant.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.