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.
10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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. Perniciarogreen2 sentences1982The defense contends that the time card is hearsay evidence whose admission is not justified under the principles approved by this Court in State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244 (La.1979) concerning the business record exception. [6] This complaint may or may not have merit. 1982While scientific reports may be admissible at trial under the business record exception to the hearsay rule [ State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244 (La.1979).], the trial court's exclusion of the evidence in this case was not erroneous. *946 The unsigned report offered no assurance that its writer spoke from personal knowledge about the neutron activation test nor that the writer was in a position to vouch for its reliability. | 2 | 3 |
Aguilar v. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF SE LA.green1 sentence2014See Aguilar v. Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Inc., 04-1027 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/1/05) , 900 So.2d 65, 69-70 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Alliengreen1 sentence1990Counsel did not object at trial that the movie records failed to qualify under the business record exception to the hearsay rule, and "[i]n the ordinary case hearsay evidence not objected to constitutes substantive evidence." State v. Allien, 366 So.2d 1308, 1311 (La.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co.green1 sentence1966See Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 905 , Docket No. 1677, rendered this date; Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x., 287 Ky. 400 , 153 S.W.2d 947, 1941 ; Huebner v. Fischer, 232 Wis. 600 , 288 N. W. 254, 1939 .) This version was allegedly repeated twice: (1) to an insurance adjuster for the defendant, who typed a statement to this effectwhich the plaintiff, however, had refused to sign; (2) to a hospital clerk at the time of admission, see D-3 Tr. 24 but, pretermitting whether such hearsay statement is admissible under the business record exception, the testimony of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Monroe
green
2 sentences1987State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185 (La.1977). 1985Monroe, supra. Here the records in question did not in any way implicate or accuse the defendant but related only to what the victim's husband, or someone for him, wrote was the purpose of each loan he made from his credit union, a thing the husband had difficulty in remembering while testifying. | 2 | 1985–1987 |
State v. Stokes
green
1 sentence1991In State v. Stokes, 433 So.2d 96 (La. 1983), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the inherent "double hearsay" problem associated with the business record exception. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Hodgeson
green
1 sentence1989State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1974). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x
green
2 sentences1966See Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 905 , Docket No. 1677, rendered this date; Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x., 287 Ky. 400 , 153 S.W.2d 947, 1941 ; Huebner v. Fischer, 232 Wis. 600 , 288 N. W. 254, 1939 .) This version was allegedly repeated twice: (1) to an insurance adjuster for the defendant, who typed a statement to this effectwhich the plaintiff, however, had refused to sign; (2) to a hospital clerk at the time of admission, see D-3 Tr. 24 but, pretermitting whether such hearsay statement is admissible under the business record exception, the testimony of the 1966See Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 905 , Docket No. 1677, rendered this date; Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x., 287 Ky. 400 , 153 S.W.2d 947, 1941 ; Huebner v. Fischer, 232 Wis. 600 , 288 N. W. 254, 1939 .) This version was allegedly repeated twice: (1) to an insurance adjuster for the defendant, who typed a statement to this effectwhich the plaintiff, however, had refused to sign; (2) to a hospital clerk at the time of admission, see D-3 Tr. 24 but, pretermitting whether such hearsay statement is admissible under the business record exception, the testimony of the | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Huebner v. Fischer
neutral
2 sentences1966See Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 905 , Docket No. 1677, rendered this date; Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x., 287 Ky. 400 , 153 S.W.2d 947, 1941 ; Huebner v. Fischer, 232 Wis. 600 , 288 N. W. 254, 1939 .) This version was allegedly repeated twice: (1) to an insurance adjuster for the defendant, who typed a statement to this effectwhich the plaintiff, however, had refused to sign; (2) to a hospital clerk at the time of admission, see D-3 Tr. 24 but, pretermitting whether such hearsay statement is admissible under the business record exception, the testimony of the 1966See Guillory v. Allstate Insurance Co., La.App. 3 Cir., 185 So.2d 905 , Docket No. 1677, rendered this date; Newton v. Wetherby's Adm'x., 287 Ky. 400 , 153 S.W.2d 947, 1941 ; Huebner v. Fischer, 232 Wis. 600 , 288 N. W. 254, 1939 .) This version was allegedly repeated twice: (1) to an insurance adjuster for the defendant, who typed a statement to this effectwhich the plaintiff, however, had refused to sign; (2) to a hospital clerk at the time of admission, see D-3 Tr. 24 but, pretermitting whether such hearsay statement is admissible under the business record exception, the testimony of the | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.