Aaron v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 531 U.S. 860 (2000). · Go Syfert
Aaron v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 531 U.S. 860 (2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stewart v. Wachowski (cacd, 2006-03-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Stewart v. Wachowski
C.D. Cal. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Breneman v. Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1986) (“Rule 801(d)(2)(D) requires the proffering party to lay a foundation to show that an otherwise excludible statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment”); see also United States v. Chang, 207 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir.) (the party proffering evidence pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(D) bears the burden of establishing an adequate foundation), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 860 , 121 S.Ct. 148 , 148 L.Ed.2d 98 (2000); Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1054 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Breneman).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC
9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is “a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.” This rule “requires the proffering party to lay a foundation to show that an otherwise excludable statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment.” Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1054 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Breneman v. Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Un…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, Llc, Lozen International, Llc, Counterclaimant-Appellant v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., Counter-Defendant-Appellee
9th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). 56 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) provides that a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and is "a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship." This rule "requires the proffering party to lay a foundation to show that an otherwise excludable statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent's employment." Harris v. Itzhaki, 183 F.3d 1043, 1054 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Breneman v. Kennecott Corp., 799 F.2d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1986))…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Aaron, aka Bazile
v.
Baltimore Ravens, Inc.
No. 99-10103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 2000.
531 U.S. 860
Published

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.