14 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota 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 |
|---|---|---|
National Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co.green2 sentences2015Evid. 803(6); see also Nat’l Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co., 339 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Minn. 1983) (stating that the business records exception requires foundational testimony by a qualified witness). 2015See also Nat’l Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co., 339 N.W.2d 59, 62 (Minn. 1983) (providing that the business-records exception requires foundation for the document’s admissibility to be laid by a qualified witness). | 3 | 3 |
In Re the Welfare of the Children of J.B.green1 sentence2016In re Welfare of Children of J.B., 698 N.W.2d 160, 172 (Minn. App. 2005), review dismissed (Minn. May 3, 2005). 7 P.L.G. challenges the admissibility of five exhibits, arguing that the county failed to establish a sufficient foundation for admission under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2009See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. at 1367 (noting that “[m]ost of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial-for example, business records”). 2009See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. at 1367 (noting that “[m]ost of the hearsay exceptions covered statements that by their nature were not testimonial-for example, business records”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2009State v. Johnson, 756 N.W.2d 883, 891 (Minn.App.2008) (noting that, under Crawford , the Supreme Court would not view all statements admissible under the business-records exception as automatically being non-testimonial and concluding that an autopsy report is testimonial). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Felizgreen2 sentences2008The Feliz court held “that a statement properly admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 803(6) [the business records exception] cannot be testimonial because a business record is fundamentally inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has suggested comprise the defining characteristics of testimonial evidence.” Id. at 233-34 (footnote omitted). 2008The court stated: “We know that because Rule 803(6) requires business records to be kept in the regular course of a business activity, records created in anticipation of litigation do not fall within its definition.” Id. at 234 (citation *891 omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Welfare of S.R.A.green2 sentences2003In re Welfare of S.R.A., 527 N.W.2d 835, 838 (Minn.App. 1995) (concluding that admission of evidence in termination-of-parental-rights proceeding was harmless error), review denied (Minn. Mar. 29, 1995). 2003In re Welfare of S.R.A., 527 N.W.2d 835, 838 (Minn.App. 1995) (concluding that admission of evidence in termination-of-parental-rights proceeding was harmless error), review denied (Minn. Mar. 29, 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Company of Minneapolisgreen2 sentences1986Thereafter, in Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224 , 214 N.W.2d 672 (1974), we held the attending doctor’s hospital notes on the cause of an áccident, when offered by the defendant, are not admissible under the business records exception as either sub *228 stantive or impeachment evidence, at least “when the treating physicians are unavailable, are not called, or are deceased at the time of trial.” Id., 298 Minn. at 232, 234 , 214 N.W.2d at 678, 679 . 1986Thereafter, in Lindstrom v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 298 Minn. 224 , 214 N.W.2d 672 (1974), we held the attending doctor’s hospital notes on the cause of an áccident, when offered by the defendant, are not admissible under the business records exception as either sub *228 stantive or impeachment evidence, at least “when the treating physicians are unavailable, are not called, or are deceased at the time of trial.” Id., 298 Minn. at 232, 234 , 214 N.W.2d at 678, 679 . | 1 | 1 |
Romero v. City of Richfieldgreen2 sentences1986Accident reports are not made in the regular course of a business and therefore are not admissible under the business records exception, Romero v. City of Richfield, 253 N.W.2d 152, 153 (Minn.1977). 1986Romero v. City of Richfield, 253 N.W.2d 152, 153 (Minn.1977). | 1 | 1 |
Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co.green2 sentences1985Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co., 242 Minn. 471, 484 , 65 N.W.2d 888, 897 (1954). 1985Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co., 242 Minn. 471, 484 , 65 N.W.2d 888, 897 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Matousek
green
2 sentences1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). 1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). | 2 | 1973–1981 |
In Re the Child of Simon
green
1 sentence2016Simon, 662 N.W.2d at 161 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Caulfield
green
1 sentence2009In Caulfield , the Minnesota Supreme Court explained that the focus should not be on a particular statement’s reliability. 722 N.W.2d at 309-10 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Marriage of Murray v. Antell
green
2 sentences2003In Murray v. Antell, 361 N.W.2d 466 (Minn.App.1985), for example, we concluded that reports of abuse prepared by staff members of a mental health center were admissible under the business-records exception, even though the staff members did not testify, where the center's psychologist, who had examined the children reporting the abuse, was qualified to testify that the reports were prepared by qualified personnel conducting a team evaluation. 2003In Murray v. Antell, 361 N.W.2d 466 (Minn.App.1985), for example, we concluded that reports of abuse prepared by staff members of a mental health center were admissible under the business-records exception, even though the staff members did not testify, where the center’s psychologist, who had examined the children reporting the abuse, was qualified to testify that the reports were prepared by qualified personnel conducting a team evaluation. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Wiley
green
2 sentences1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). 1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom
green
2 sentences1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). 1981Rule 803(6) was not intended to change the decisions of this court in State v. Wiley, 295 Minn. 411 , 205 N.W.2d 667 (1973), State v. Matousek, 287 Minn. 344 , 178 N.W.2d 604 (1970), and City of Fairmont v. Sjostrom, 280 Minn. 87 , 157 N.W.2d 849 (1968), cases which support defendant’s contention that evidence of this sort cannot be admitted under the business-records exception to prove an element of a crime. 11 P. Thompson, Minnesota Practice, § 803.06, at 369 (1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Brown v. St. Paul City Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1977Paul Ry., 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N.W.2d 688 [1954]), (b) reports such as this are not admissible as public records if they contain opinions (Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N.W.2d 180 [1951]), and (c) such reports are not admissible as representative admissions if they are in opinion form (Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. 1977Paul Ry., 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N.W.2d 688 [1954]), (b) reports such as this are not admissible as public records if they contain opinions (Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N.W.2d 180 [1951]), and (c) such reports are not admissible as representative admissions if they are in opinion form (Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1977Paul Ry., 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N.W.2d 688 [1954]), (b) reports such as this are not admissible as public records if they contain opinions (Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N.W.2d 180 [1951]), and (c) such reports are not admissible as representative admissions if they are in opinion form (Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. 1977Paul Ry., 241 Minn. 15 , 62 N.W.2d 688 [1954]), (b) reports such as this are not admissible as public records if they contain opinions (Barnes v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 233 Minn. 410 , 47 N.W.2d 180 [1951]), and (c) such reports are not admissible as representative admissions if they are in opinion form (Albertson v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Barnum v. Jefferson
neutral
2 sentences1958Barnum v. Jefferson, 109 Minn. 1 , 122 N. W. 453 ; Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594 , 18 Ñ. 1958Barnum v. Jefferson, 109 Minn. 1 , 122 N. W. 453 ; Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594 , 18 Ñ. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Knutson v. Lasher
green
1 sentence1958Barnum v. Jefferson, 109 Minn. 1 , 122 N. W. 453 ; Knutson v. Lasher, 219 Minn. 594 , 18 Ñ. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.