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.
9 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1957–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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. Wurtzgreen2 sentences2016State v. Wurtz, 195 Mont. 226, 238 , 636 P.2d 246, 252 (1981). 2016State v. Wurtz, 195 Mont. 226, 238 , 636 P.2d 246, 252 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Renewal, of the Teaching Certificate of Thompsongreen2 sentences1999See Certificate of Thompson, 270 Mont. at 427 , 893 P.2d at 305 . ¶33 Andersen contends that the District Court should have admitted the fire marshal’s report under the business records exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Rule 803(6), M.R.Evid. 1999See Certificate of Thompson, 270 Mont. at 427 , 893 P.2d at 305 . ¶33 Andersen contends that the District Court should have admitted the fire marshal’s report under the business records exception to the hearsay rule set forth in Rule 803(6), M.R.Evid. | 1 | 1 |
West v. Oklahomagreen2 sentences1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir.1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) ("adher[ing] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception"). ¶ 21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was "not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business." Palmer, 318 1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir. 1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) (“adhering] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception”). ¶21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was “not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business.” Palmer, 318 U | 1 | 1 |
McFarley v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir.1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) ("adher[ing] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception"). ¶ 21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was "not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business." Palmer, 318 1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir. 1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) (“adhering] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception”). ¶21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was “not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business.” Palmer, 318 U | 1 | 1 |
Willie Mae Gray v. Busch Entertainment Corporation, D/B/A Busch Gardens, the Old Countrygreen2 sentences1998See also Gray v. Busch Entertainment Corp. (2nd Cir.1989), 886 F.2d 14, 15-16 (holding that the statement of a patron's daughter in an amusement park's first aid report concerning the cause of the patron's accident was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the patron's daughter was not acting in the ordinary course of business). 1998See also Gray v. Busch Entertainment Corp. (2nd Cir. 1989), 886 F.2d 14, 15-16 (hold ing that the statement of a patron’s daughter in an amusement park’s first aid report concerning the cause of the patron’s accident was not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because the patron’s daughter was not acting in the ordinary course of business). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles W. Blackburngreen2 sentences1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir.1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670 , cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) ("adher[ing] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception"). ¶ 21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was "not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business." Palmer, 318 1998United States v. Blackburn (7th Cir. 1993), 992 F.2d 666, 670, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 949 , 114 S.Ct. 393 , 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993) (“adhering] to the well-established rule that documents made in anticipation of litigation are inadmissible under the business records exception”). ¶21 In Palmer v. Hoffman (1943), 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S.Ct. 477 , 87 L.Ed. 645 , the United States Supreme Court held that an accident report made by a railroad engineer was not admissible as a business record because the report was “not a record made for the systematic conduct of the business as a business.” Palmer, 318 U | 1 | 1 |
Anthony Romano v. Kenneth Howarth, Michael Juron and Matthew Karkosgreen2 sentences1998Romano v. Howarth (2nd Cir.1993), 998 F.2d 101, 107-08 (holding that a nurse's progress notes were not admissible under the business records exception to the *263 hearsay rule because while the nurse's business duty to accurately record plaintiff's behavior ensured the accuracy of her notes, it did not guarantee the accuracy of information provided to her by others not under a similar duty). 1998Romano v. Howarth (2nd Cir.1993), 998 F.2d 101, 107-08 (holdingthat a nurse’s progress notes were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because while the nurse’s business duty to accurately record plaintiff’s behavior ensured the accuracy of her notes, it did not guarantee the accuracy of information provided to her by others not under a similar duty). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas Creditors Ass'n v. Padelfordgreen1 sentence1957This appeal involves application of the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, of which the Oregon Supreme Court has said: ‘ ‘ One of the purposes of the * * * Act is to enlarge the operation of the business records exception to the hearsay evidence rule. * * * The court passes upon the admissibility of the records and the jury passes upon their weight.” Douglas Creditors Ass’n v. Padelford, 181 Or. 345, 351, 353 , 182 Pac. (2d 390, 393, 394. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Baze
green
2 sentences2024In support of her argument, Jill relies on the proposition that the business records exception “requires the entity creating the business record—not the entity receiving it—to establish that the record was prepared in accordance with its regular and trustworthy business practices.” State v. Baze, 2011 MT 52, ¶ 19 , 359 Mont. 411 , 251 P.3d 122 (emphasis in original). ¶15 Here, testimony from Sanders confirmed that BSWB relied on the timestamps ascribed to various account activities by the bank’s third-party online transaction manager “to inform a customer about when . . . actions were taken el 2024In support of her argument, Jill relies on the proposition that the business records exception “requires the entity creating the business record—not the entity receiving it—to establish that the record was prepared in accordance with its regular and trustworthy business practices.” State v. Baze, 2011 MT 52, ¶ 19 , 359 Mont. 411 , 251 P.3d 122 (emphasis in original). ¶15 Here, testimony from Sanders confirmed that BSWB relied on the timestamps ascribed to various account activities by the bank’s third-party online transaction manager “to inform a customer about when . . . actions were taken el | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Palmer v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences2014Claimants cite Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S. Ct. 477 (1943), in which the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that an accident report prepared in contemplation of litigation lacked the trustworthiness required to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule. 2014Claimants cite Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109 , 63 S. Ct. 477 (1943), in which the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s determination that an accident report prepared in contemplation of litigation lacked the trustworthiness required to satisfy the business records exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 1998–2014 |
State v. Edmundson
green
2 sentences2004Bean , ¶¶ 23, 24. ¶35 We also addressed the business records exception in State v. Edmundson (1990), 246 Mont. 241 , 805 P.2d 1289 , wherein we held that the records at issue were trustworthy and admissible because they “were made in the regular course of business of the [group home],” by an individual who had a duty to record any reported behavioral problems while the incidents were fresh in this individual’s mind. 2004Bean , ¶¶ 23, 24. ¶35 We also addressed the business records exception in State v. Edmundson (1990), 246 Mont. 241 , 805 P.2d 1289 , wherein we held that the records at issue were trustworthy and admissible because they “were made in the regular course of business of the [group home],” by an individual who had a duty to record any reported behavioral problems while the incidents were fresh in this individual’s mind. | 2 | 1998–2004 |
United States v. Cedric L. Roulette
green
1 sentence1998For example, the State relies in part upon the case of United States v. Roulette (8th Cir.1996), 75 F.3d 418, 422 , cert.denied, Roulette v. United States (1996), ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 , in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the government could introduce laboratory reports identifying the substance involved in a drug case without producing testimony by the person who conducted the tests or proof of her unavailability. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Rodrigo Garcia v. United States
green
1 sentence1998For example, the State relies in part upon the case of United States v. Roulette (8th Cir.1996), 75 F.3d 418, 422 , cert.denied, Roulette v. United States (1996), ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 , in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the government could introduce laboratory reports identifying the substance involved in a drug case without producing testimony by the person who conducted the tests or proof of her unavailability. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Jefferson v. United States
green
1 sentence1998For example, the State relies in part upon the case of United States v. Roulette (8th Cir.1996), 75 F.3d 418, 422 , cert.denied, Roulette v. United States (1996), ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 , in which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the government could introduce laboratory reports identifying the substance involved in a drug case without producing testimony by the person who conducted the tests or proof of her unavailability. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McGrath v. Dubs
neutral
1 sentence1957The Montana act, approved February 25, 1937, and now appearing as R.C.M. 1947, sections 93-801-1 through 93-801-4, has been discussed by this court in McGrath v. Dubs, 127 Mont. 101 at page 112, 257 Pac. (2d) 899 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
McGrath v. Dubs
neutral
1 sentence1957The Montana act, approved February 25, 1937, and now appearing as R.C.M. 1947, sections 93-801-1 through 93-801-4, has been discussed by this court in McGrath v. Dubs, 127 Mont. 101 at page 112, 257 Pac. (2d) 899 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.