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.
14 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gary Anthony Patrickgreen2 sentences2005In United States v. Patrick, 959 F.2d 991 (D.C.Cir.1992), the court rejected the business record exception as a basis for the evidence’s admissibility, reasoning that the address on a Circuit City receipt was “double hearsay,” or hearsay within hearsay. 2005See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 157 F.3d 949, 952 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that the person making the record need not have a duty to report so long as someone has a duty to verify the information reported); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 657-58 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that business record exception may apply if it is shown that it is the standard practice to verify the information or that the information satisfied another hearsay exception); United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 700 (10th Cir.1993) (finding that business record exception may apply if business requires verification o | 1 | 2 |
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2014Absent some evidence that the words “lead paint” were entered fraudulently or are otherwise untrustworthy, identifying the person who wrote the term into these HABC documents is not essential to using the business record exception for admission of these documents. “[W]here a record qualifies as a business record, there is a presumption of trustworthiness, and the objecting party, especially in a civil case, bears a heavy burden in order to exclude an otherwise admissible business record as untrustworthy.” Owens- Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 116 , 604 A.2d 47, 51 (1992). 2014Absent some evidence that the words “lead paint” were entered fraudulently or are otherwise untrustworthy, identifying the person who wrote the term into these HABC documents is not essential to using the business record exception for admission of these documents. “[W]here a record qualifies as a business record, there is a presumption of trustworthiness, and the objecting party, especially in a civil case, bears a heavy burden in order to exclude an otherwise admissible business record as untrustworthy.” Owens- Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 116 , 604 A.2d 47, 51 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Richard P. Console, United States of America v. Morton Markoff, D.O., United States of America v. Edward C. Curciogreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 157 F.3d 949, 952 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that the person making the record need not have a duty to report so long as someone has a duty to verify the information reported); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 657-58 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that business record exception may apply if it is shown that it is the standard practice to verify the information or that the information satisfied another hearsay exception); United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 700 (10th Cir.1993) (finding that business record exception may apply if business requires verification o | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Edward McIntyregreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 157 F.3d 949, 952 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that the person making the record need not have a duty to report so long as someone has a duty to verify the information reported); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 657-58 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that business record exception may apply if it is shown that it is the standard practice to verify the information or that the information satisfied another hearsay exception); United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 700 (10th Cir.1993) (finding that business record exception may apply if business requires verification o | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Reyesgreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., United States v. Reyes, 157 F.3d 949, 952 (2d Cir.1998) (holding that the person making the record need not have a duty to report so long as someone has a duty to verify the information reported); United States v. Console, 13 F.3d 641, 657-58 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that business record exception may apply if it is shown that it is the standard practice to verify the information or that the information satisfied another hearsay exception); United States v. McIntyre, 997 F.2d 687, 700 (10th Cir.1993) (finding that business record exception may apply if business requires verification o | 1 | 1 |
Dorsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See Dorsey, 276 Md. at 659 , 350 A.2d 665 . 2003See Dorsey, 276 Md. at 659 , 350 A.2d 665 . | 1 | 1 |
Dietz v. Mooregreen2 sentences1978Dietz v. Moore, 277 Md. 1, 6 , 351 A. 2d 428, 432 (1976); Pratt v. State, 39 Md. 1978Dietz v. Moore, 277 Md. 1, 6 , 351 A. 2d 428, 432 (1976); Pratt v. State, 39 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bernadyn v. State
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nance v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 302–03. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence2016That conclusion naturally flows from the Morrissey/Gagnon holdings that probation revocation proceedings are 10 More recently, in Thompson v. State, 156 Md. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Garlick
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Garlick, 313 Md. 209, 221-22 , 545 A.2d 27 (1988), the Court analyzed the business record exception and said: “The words, ‘regular course of business’ ... are not colloquial words but are words of art.” So “ ‘regular course’ of business must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically *606 employed for the conduct of the business as a business.” In a hospital the “regular course of business” is to treat people, that is, to care for patients. 1996In State v. Garlick, 313 Md. 209, 221-22 , 545 A.2d 27 (1988), the Court analyzed the business record exception and said: “The words, ‘regular course of business’ ... are not colloquial words but are words of art.” So “ ‘regular course’ of business must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically *606 employed for the conduct of the business as a business.” In a hospital the “regular course of business” is to treat people, that is, to care for patients. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Yates v. Bair Transport, Inc.
green
1 sentence1994Consequently, these authorities have held the trial court possesses discretionary power to exclude reports which appear to be unreliable even though they satisfy the letter of the business record exception, (footnote omitted) (citing, inter alia, Yates, 249 F.Supp. at 690 .) 12 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re Colin R.
green
2 sentences1988In Colin R., 63 Md.App. at 684 , 493 A.2d 1083 , we held that a hospital record, containing urine sample results tending to show that Colin’s mother had regularly given him diuretics, was admissible under the business record exception contained in Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101 (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol). 1988In Colin R., 63 Md.App. at 684 , 493 A.2d 1083 , we held that a hospital record, containing urine sample results tending to show that Colin’s mother had regularly given him diuretics, was admissible under the business record exception contained in Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101 (1974, 1984 Repl.Vol). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hutchinson v. Plante
green
2 sentences1986Thus, the business record exception is predicated not only on the circumstance that the record itself is kept in the usual course of the business but also on the circumstance that the recorded information is obtained by the recorder from a declarant having a “business” duty to communicate it truthfully. [M] Aetna also favorably cited Hutchinson v. Plante, 175 Conn. 1 , 392 A.2d 488 (1978). 1986Thus, the business record exception is predicated not only on the circumstance that the record itself is kept in the usual course of the business but also on the circumstance that the recorded information is obtained by the recorder from a declarant having a “business” duty to communicate it truthfully. [M] Aetna also favorably cited Hutchinson v. Plante, 175 Conn. 1 , 392 A.2d 488 (1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Levine v. Beebe
green
2 sentences1985Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101(b), which provides that “[a] writing or record made in the regular course of business as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove the act, transaction, occurrence or event.” Appellants correctly observe that police accident reports are admissible under this exception, Levine v. Beebe, 238 Md. 365 , 209 A.2d 67 (1965), and that summaries or compilations of business records may similarly be admissible, Smith v. Jones, 236 Md. 305 , 203 A.2d 865 (1964). 1985Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101(b), which provides that “[a] writing or record made in the regular course of business as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove the act, transaction, occurrence or event.” Appellants correctly observe that police accident reports are admissible under this exception, Levine v. Beebe, 238 Md. 365 , 209 A.2d 67 (1965), and that summaries or compilations of business records may similarly be admissible, Smith v. Jones, 236 Md. 305 , 203 A.2d 865 (1964). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Smith v. Jones
green
2 sentences1985Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101(b), which provides that “[a] writing or record made in the regular course of business as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove the act, transaction, occurrence or event.” Appellants correctly observe that police accident reports are admissible under this exception, Levine v. Beebe, 238 Md. 365 , 209 A.2d 67 (1965), and that summaries or compilations of business records may similarly be admissible, Smith v. Jones, 236 Md. 305 , 203 A.2d 865 (1964). 1985Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 10-101(b), which provides that “[a] writing or record made in the regular course of business as a memorandum or record of an act, transaction, occurrence, or event is admissible to prove the act, transaction, occurrence or event.” Appellants correctly observe that police accident reports are admissible under this exception, Levine v. Beebe, 238 Md. 365 , 209 A.2d 67 (1965), and that summaries or compilations of business records may similarly be admissible, Smith v. Jones, 236 Md. 305 , 203 A.2d 865 (1964). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hyman v. State
green
1 sentence1979In Hyman v. State, 4 Md. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Pratt v. State
green
1 sentence1978Dietz v. Moore, 277 Md. 1, 6 , 351 A. 2d 428, 432 (1976); Pratt v. State, 39 Md. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.