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.
12 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1955–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cameron v. Otto Bock Orthopedic Industry, Inc.green2 sentences2009“To satisfy the business records exception, each participant in the creation of the record must be acting in the course of regularly conducted business to ensure the trustworthiness and reliability of the information.” Interest of B.B., at ¶ 8 (citing Cameron v. Otto Bock Orthopedic Indus., Inc., 43 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir. 1994)). 2009“To satisfy the business records exception, each participant in the creation of the record must be acting in the course of regularly conducted business to ensure the trustworthiness and reliability of the information.” Interest of B.B. , at 8 (citing Cameron v. Otto Bock Orthopedic Indus., Inc. , 43 F.3d 14, 16 (1st Cir. 1994)). | 4 | 4 |
Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Goldegreen2 sentences2021See N.D.R.Ev. 803(6); N.D.C.C. § 31-08-01; see also Sanford v. Sanden, 343 N.W.2d 776, 778 (N.D. 1984); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Golde, 190 N.W.2d 752, 756-57 (N.D. 1971). 1975This court, in Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Golde, 190 N.W.2d 752, 756-757 (N.D.1971), said: “The purpose of the enactment of § 31— 08-01, N.D.C.C., was to enlarge the operation of the business records exception to the hearsay evidence rule and § 31-08-01 should be liberally construed to that end. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2025N.D.R.Ev. 803(6); see State v. Henderson, 2024 ND 42 , ¶¶ 18–19, 4 N.W.3d 223 . | 1 | 1 |
Sanford v. Sandengreen1 sentence2021See N.D.R.Ev. 803(6); N.D.C.C. § 31-08-01; see also Sanford v. Sanden, 343 N.W.2d 776, 778 (N.D. 1984); Endicott Johnson Corp. v. Golde, 190 N.W.2d 752, 756-57 (N.D. 1971). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramseygreen2 sentences2009See Ramsey, 2005 ND 42, ¶ 8 , 692 N.W.2d 498 (stating that a court abuses its discretion when it misinterprets or misapplies the law). [¶ 25] However, this does not end our analysis on the issue, as we find that the admission of the CPA Report under Rule 807 was not reversible error. 2009See Ramsey, 2005 ND 42, ¶ 8 , 692 N.W.2d 498 (stating that a court abuses its discretion when it misinterprets or misapplies the law). [¶ 25] However, this does not end our analysis on the issue, as we find that the admission of the CPA Report under Rule 807 was not reversible error. | 1 | 1 |
JR Watkins Company v. Vangengreen2 sentences1970Watkins Company v. Vangen, 116 N.W.2d 641 at 650 (N.D.1962), wherein this court reaffirmed its view that the intent of the Uniform Act was to enlarge the operation of the business records exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule. 1970Watkins Company v. Vangen, 116 N.W.2d 641 at 650 (N.D.1962), wherein this court reaffirmed its view that the intent of the Uniform Act was to enlarge the operation of the business records exception to the Hearsay Evidence Rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bernstein
green
2 sentences2009State v. Bernstein, 2005 ND APP 6, ¶ 20 , 697 N.W.2d 371 (“When the judgment below is entirely favorable to the appellee, he is entitled to attempt to save the judgment upon any ground asserted in the trial court.”). 2009State v. Bernstein, 2005 ND APP 6, ¶ 20 , 697 N.W.2d 371 (“When the judgment below is entirely favorable to the appellee, he is entitled to attempt to save the judgment upon any ground asserted in the trial court.”). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
In Re TT
green
2 sentences2007A finding is clearly erroneous "if there is no evidence to support it, if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made, or if the finding is induced by an erroneous view of the law." Id. [¶ 23] The juvenile court found B.B. was deprived as alleged in the petition, specifically citing "repeated domestic violence, substance abuse issues and failure to follow through with appropriate rehabilitative treatment/counseling regimens by both [parents]." Although the court's findings are minimal, they are sufficient to understand the basis for the court's depri 2007A finding is clearly erroneous “if there is no evidence to support it, if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made, or if the finding is induced by an erroneous view of the law.” Id. [¶23] The juvenile court found B.B. was deprived as alleged in the petition, specifically citing “repeated domestic violence, substance abuse issues and failure to follow through with appropriate rehabilitative treatment/counseling regimens by both [parents].” Although the court’s findings are minimal, they are sufficient to understand the basis for the court’s depriv | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In Re BB
green
2 sentences2013In In re J.S.L., at ¶ 20, we discussed In re B.B., 2007 ND 115, ¶¶ 8-9 , 735 N.W.2d 855 , in which we held that child assessment reports contained “hearsay within hearsay” and such a “report was not admissible under the business records exception because of the presence of statements made by individuals who were not acting in the regular course of business, and because the person who prepared the report did not have personal knowledge of the events detailed in those statements.” We noted, however, that such statements may be admissible under the public records exception in N.D.R.Ev. 803(8). 2013In In re J.S.L., at ¶ 20, we discussed In re B.B., 2007 ND 115, ¶¶ 8-9 , 735 N.W.2d 855 , in which we held that child assessment reports contained “hearsay within hearsay” and such a “report was not admissible under the business records exception because of the presence of statements made by individuals who were not acting in the regular course of business, and because the person who prepared the report did not have personal knowledge of the events detailed in those statements.” We noted, however, that such statements may be admissible under the public records exception in N.D.R.Ev. 803(8). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Grand Forks County Social Services v. T.L.
green
2 sentences2013We then distinguished B.B. because the trial court in J.S.L. had relied on the residual exception in N.D.R.Ev. 807. [¶ 36] In In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, ¶ 24 , 763 N.W.2d 783 , however, we held that while the report “may have been admissible under the combined force of the business records exception and the public records exception, the [trial] court’s decision to admit the Report under the residual exception was an abuse of discretion.” Nonetheless, we explained admission of the report was not reversible error: However, this does not end our analysis on the issue, as we find that the admission 2013We then distinguished B.B. because the trial court in J.S.L. had relied on the residual exception in N.D.R.Ev. 807. [¶ 36] In In re J.S.L., 2009 ND 43, ¶ 24 , 763 N.W.2d 783 , however, we held that while the report “may have been admissible under the combined force of the business records exception and the public records exception, the [trial] court’s decision to admit the Report under the residual exception was an abuse of discretion.” Nonetheless, we explained admission of the report was not reversible error: However, this does not end our analysis on the issue, as we find that the admission | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Northwestern Improvement Company v. Norris
green
1 sentence1962In Northwestern Improvement Co. v. Norris, N.D., 74 N.W.2d 497 , we held that the purpose of the statute was to enlarge the operation of the business records exception to the hearsay evidence rule, that the statute should be liberally construed to that end, and that the ruling of the trial court on the admission or exclusion of records under the statute will not be reversed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
State v. Ramstad
green
1 sentence1962To the same effect is State v. Ramstad, N.D., 87 N.W.2d 736 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Loper v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1955Loper v. Morrison, 23 Cal.2d 600 , 145 P.2d 1 ; Fuller v. White, Cal.App., 193 P.2d 100 . 1955Loper v. Morrison, 23 Cal.2d 600 , 145 P.2d 1 ; Fuller v. White, Cal.App., 193 P.2d 100 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.