Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2022 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marstongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Marston, 780 So.2d 1058, 1064 (La.2001) (possibility that business record was not inherently trustworthy because teller did not follow routine banking procedure went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); People v. Montroy, 225 A.D.2d 913, 914 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y.App. 2010See, e.g., State v. Marston, 2000-0589 (La. 3/16/01); 780 So. 2d 1058,1064 (possibility that business record was not inherently trustworthy because teller did not follow routine banking procedure went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); People v. Montroy, 225 A.D.2d 913, 914 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1996) (“defendant’s contention concerning the witnesses’ limited understanding of the record-keeping practices of their employer merely goes to the weight of the evidence sought to be admitted and not to its admissibility”); Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 538 (Tenn. 1977) (Generally | 2 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir.2006) ("`[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are "by their nature" not prepared for litigation'") (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc.3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005)) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir.2005). ¶ 27 Business records are routinely kept and generally used onl 2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ ‘[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are “by their nature” not prepared for litigation’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc. 3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 ))); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir. 2005). ¶27 Business records are routinely kept and genera | 2 | 2 |
People v. Duriogreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir.2006) ("`[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are "by their nature" not prepared for litigation'") (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc.3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005)) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir.2005). ¶ 27 Business records are routinely kept and generally used onl 2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ ‘[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are “by their nature” not prepared for litigation’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc. 3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 ))); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir. 2005). ¶27 Business records are routinely kept and genera | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Eleuterio Lopez-Moreno, Also Known as Eleuterio Lopezgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir.2006) ("`[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are "by their nature" not prepared for litigation'") (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc.3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005)) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir.2005). ¶ 27 Business records are routinely kept and generally used onl 2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ ‘[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are “by their nature” not prepared for litigation’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc. 3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 ))); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir. 2005). ¶27 Business records are routinely kept and genera | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Felizgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir.2006) ("`[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are "by their nature" not prepared for litigation'") (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc.3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005)) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 ); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir.2005). ¶ 27 Business records are routinely kept and generally used onl 2007See, e.g., United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227, 234 (2d Cir. 2006) (“ ‘[t]he essence of the business record exception contemplated in Crawford is that such records or statements are not testimonial in nature because they are prepared in the ordinary course of regularly conducted business and are “by their nature” not prepared for litigation’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting People v. Durio, 7 Misc. 3d 729 , 794 N.Y.S.2d 863 , 867 (2005) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 ))); United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420, 437 (5th Cir. 2005). ¶27 Business records are routinely kept and genera | 2 | 2 |
Graham v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Marston, 2000-0589 (La. 3/16/01); 780 So. 2d 1058,1064 (possibility that business record was not inherently trustworthy because teller did not follow routine banking procedure went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); People v. Montroy, 225 A.D.2d 913, 914 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1996) (“defendant’s contention concerning the witnesses’ limited understanding of the record-keeping practices of their employer merely goes to the weight of the evidence sought to be admitted and not to its admissibility”); Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 538 (Tenn. 1977) (Generally | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hopkins
green
2 sentences2021State v. Hopkins, 134 Wn. 2012Tegland, Washington Practice: Evidence Law and Practice § 803.37 (5th ed. 2007) (citing State v. Hopkins, 134 Wn. | 2 | 2012–2021 |
In Re Welfare of JM
green
2 sentences2019App. 912 , 125 P.3d 245 (2005), to argue the business record exception does not apply.8 J.M. is distinguishable. 2006In re Welfare of J.M., 130 Wash. App. 912, 924 , 125 P.3d 245 (2005). | 2 | 2006–2019 |
People v. Montroy
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Marston, 2000-0589 (La. 3/16/01); 780 So. 2d 1058,1064 (possibility that business record was not inherently trustworthy because teller did not follow routine banking procedure went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); People v. Montroy, 225 A.D.2d 913, 914 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1996) (“defendant’s contention concerning the witnesses’ limited understanding of the record-keeping practices of their employer merely goes to the weight of the evidence sought to be admitted and not to its admissibility”); Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 538 (Tenn. 1977) (Generally 2010See, e.g., State v. Marston, 2000-0589 (La. 3/16/01); 780 So. 2d 1058,1064 (possibility that business record was not inherently trustworthy because teller did not follow routine banking procedure went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility); People v. Montroy, 225 A.D.2d 913, 914 , 639 N.Y.S.2d 522 (1996) (“defendant’s contention concerning the witnesses’ limited understanding of the record-keeping practices of their employer merely goes to the weight of the evidence sought to be admitted and not to its admissibility”); Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 538 (Tenn. 1977) (Generally | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Iverson
green
2 sentences2010State v. Iverson, 126 Wash.App. 329, 337-38 , 108 P.3d 799 (2005) (citing Cantrill v. Am. 2010State v. Iverson, 126 Wn. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ziegler
green
2 sentences2006RCW 5.45.020; State v. Ziegler, 114 Wn.2d 533, 538 , 789 P.2d 79 (1990). ¶27 But Hopkins correctly points out that the State failed to establish the necessary prerequisites for the business record exception. 2006RCW 5.45.020; State v. Ziegler, 114 Wn.2d 533, 538 , 789 P.2d 79 (1990). ¶27 But Hopkins correctly points out that the State failed to establish the necessary prerequisites for the business record exception. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
In re the Welfare of J.M.
green
2 sentences2006In re Welfare of J.M., 130 Wash. App. 912, 924 , 125 P.3d 245 (2005). 2006In re Welfare of J.M., 130 Wn. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd.
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 604-05 . 2004Id. at 604-05 , 663 P.2d 156 . | 2 | 2004–2004 |
In re the Detention of Coe
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 504-505 . 2022“The business record exception generally applies to objective records of a regularly recorded activity and not those ‘reflecting the exercise of skill, judgment, and discretion.’” Id. (quoting 5C KARL B. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Fleming
procedural
1 sentence2021Id. at 500–01. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Holland v. City of Tacoma
green
1 sentence2021“Passing treatment of an issue or lack of reasoned argument is insufficient to merit judicial consideration.” Holland v. City of Tacoma, 90 Wn. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Wilcoxon
green
2 sentences2017"Only testimonial statements 'cause the declarant to be a "witness" within the meaning ofthe Confrontation Clause."' State v. Wilcoxon, 185 Wn.2d 324,331 , 373 P.3d 224 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 580 , 196 L. 2017"Only testimonial statements 'cause the declarant to be a "witness" within the meaning ofthe Confrontation Clause."' State v. Wilcoxon, 185 Wn.2d 324,331 , 373 P.3d 224 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 580 , 196 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hernandez v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles
green
1 sentence2017"Only testimonial statements 'cause the declarant to be a "witness" within the meaning ofthe Confrontation Clause."' State v. Wilcoxon, 185 Wn.2d 324,331 , 373 P.3d 224 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 580 , 196 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Chavez-Nava v. United States
neutral
1 sentence2017"Only testimonial statements 'cause the declarant to be a "witness" within the meaning ofthe Confrontation Clause."' State v. Wilcoxon, 185 Wn.2d 324,331 , 373 P.3d 224 , cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 580 , 196 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hines
green
1 sentence2012State v. Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 839 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989); Hines, 87 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Monson
green
2 sentences2012State v. Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 839 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989); Hines, 87 Wn. 2012State v. Monson, 113 Wn.2d 833, 839 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989); Hines, 87 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Iverson
green
1 sentence2010State v. Iverson, 126 Wash.App. 329, 337-38 , 108 P.3d 799 (2005) (citing Cantrill v. Am. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ben-Neth
neutral
1 sentence2004Id. at 604-05 , 663 P.2d 156 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.