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.
60 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2022 1 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. Monroegreen2 sentences2001State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185, 1189-90 (La. 1977) ("In criminal trials ... the accused's constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him are of paramount concern .... [U]se of the business records exception against the accused in criminal prosecutions should be limited to situations in which the person making the record is genuinely unavailable for trial ...."). *1063 However, the legislature repealed La.Code Evid. art. 804(B)(5) in 1995, La. 1989This exception is delineated in the seminal case of State v. Monroe, 345 So.2d 1185, 1188-1190 (La. 1977): "The so-called business records exception to the hearsay rule had its genesis in this state in civil rather than criminal law. * * * * * * Having no statutory formulation of the business records exception, this Court has in previous opinions quoted with approval the following statement of the *655 common law `regular entries in the course of business' exception: 'A permanent record made in the ordinary course of business, by a person unavailable for testimony, from personal knowledge of t | 7 | 15 |
State v. Perniciarogreen2 sentences1982In State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La.1979), we set forth the following requirements relative to the business records exception in a criminal case: In response to scholarly skepticism toward a broad regular course of business exception in criminal cases, which might violate a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation, see Pugh, The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Court for the 1971-1972 Term, Evidence, 33 La.L.Rev. 306, 318-19 (1973), this court recognized and applied a restrictive formulation of the common law business records exception in criminal cases. 1982In Perniciaro, supra, we found that the business records exception did not apply because the requirements were not met. | 3 | 8 |
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davisgreen2 sentences1999In Ruddock v. Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Bd., 96-831 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/28/97), 688 So.2d 112, 116 , this circuit adopted the definition of a "qualified witness" set forth in Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis, 567 So.2d 122, 129 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1990). 1997In Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis, 567 So.2d 122, 129 (La.App. 2 Cir.1990), the Second Circuit analyzed the qualification needed by a witness to allow introduction of evidence under the business records exception: The witness laying the foundation for admissibility of business records need not have been the preparer of the records. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Stokesgreen2 sentences1987State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La.1979); See also, State v. Stokes, 433 So.2d 96 (La.1983), and State v. Vaughn, 378 So.2d 905 (La.1979).’ ” In the case sub judice, it was error for the trial judge to admit the arrest report. 1984State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La. 1979); See also, State v. Stokes, 433 So.2d 96 (La.1983), and State v. Vaughn, 378 So.2d 905 (La.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vaughngreen2 sentences1987State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La.1979); See also, State v. Stokes, 433 So.2d 96 (La.1983), and State v. Vaughn, 378 So.2d 905 (La.1979).’ ” In the case sub judice, it was error for the trial judge to admit the arrest report. 1984State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244, 1247 (La. 1979); See also, State v. Stokes, 433 So.2d 96 (La.1983), and State v. Vaughn, 378 So.2d 905 (La.1979). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hodgesongreen2 sentences1990In State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421, 428 (La.1975) the court held that print-out sheets of business records stored in a computer were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, if relevant and material, without the necessity of producing the individual who made the entries in the regular course of business if it was shown that: 1) the computing equipment is recognized as standard equipment; 2) the entries are made in the regular course of business at or reasonably near the time when the recorded event occurred; and, 3) the foundation testimony satisfies the trial cour 1986Co., 433 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982), writ denied, 435 So.2d 450 (La.1983), we set forth the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule: “(1) persons concerned with recording the information must be unavailable for testimony, or production of such persons would be a needless burden; (2) the first collected record available or useable by the court is introduced; (3) the records are identified at the trial by one familiar with the bookkeeping procedure; and (4) the evidence seems reliable in light of the following factors (a) contemporaneousness of the entry with the o | 1 | 6 |
Regions Bank v. Louisiana Pipe & Steel Fabricators, LLCgreen1 sentence2022See Regions Bank, 80 So. 3d at 1213 . | 1 | 1 |
DMK Acquisitions & Properties, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleansgreen1 sentence2020App. 4 Cir. 9/18/13), 124 So.3d 1157, 1167 (observing that “[t]he residuum rule provides that hearsay evidence, at least when not objected to, may be used in administrative proceedings for limited purposes such as corroboration, but that such evidence cannot form the sole basis of the decision”) (quotation marks omitted); see also id., 13-0405, p. 17, n. 8 (La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gordygreen1 sentence2010Under such circumstances, it is clear the necessary predicate was not established for admissibility of the ... form under the business records exception”) with State v. Gordy, 2007-1032 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/12/08) , 981 So.2d 45, 48 (holding an insurance report generated by a Progressive Insurance agent based in Texas admissible as a business record because the Progressive insurance agent based in Louisiana who received the report testified about the recordkeeping practices of Progressive). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Parish of Jeffersongreen1 sentence2001See, for example, Peterson v. Parish of Jefferson, 95-711, at 3-4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/27/96), 668 So.2d 1386, 1388-89 . | 1 | 1 |
| Pieters v. B-Right Trucking, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Kravontkagreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCall v. Parkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miles v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERV., INC.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Armsteadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Griffin v. SUCCESSION OF BRANCH EX REL. SMITHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Geracegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ziemba v. City of New Orleansgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lambert v. Heirs of Adamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Gravesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2008"To be admitted under a business records exception, the person who actually prepared the documents need not have testified, so long as other circumstantial evidence and testimony suggests [sic] their trustworthiness." Id. at 715-16 . 2008“To be admitted under a business records exception, the person who actually prepared the documents need not have testified, so long as other circumstantial evidence and testimony suggests [sic] their trustworthiness.” Id. at 715-16 . | 3 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Vessell
green
2 sentences1989Although the right of confrontation is not absolute, it is generally accepted that any qualification of the right must be justified by necessity and attended by strong assurance that evidence admitted thereunder will be reliable. * * * * * * Therefore, in our view, use of the business records exception against the accused in criminal prosecutions should be limited to situations in which the person making the record is genuinely unavailable for trial, either because his identity is unknown or because diligent efforts have failed to procure his attendance as a witness." (Footnote omitted) See al 1987The business records exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence was discussed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Vessell, supra, at 944 , wherein the court stated: “... | 3 | 1987–1989 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1984State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1974); State v. Lewis, 288 So.2d 348 (La.1974). 1984State v. Lewis, 288 So.2d 348 (La.1974). | 3 | 1977–1984 |
State v. Juniors
green
2 sentences2018The Louisiana Supreme Court distilled the requirements to satisfy the business records exception in State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La. 6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , 326-27, cert. denied , 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006). 2018The Louisiana Supreme Court distilled the requirements to satisfy the business records exception in State v. Juniors, 2003-2425 (La. 6/29/05), 915 So.2d 291 , 326-27, cert. denied , 547 U.S. 1115 , 126 S.Ct. 1940 , 164 L.Ed.2d 669 (2006). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Stuckey v. Home Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1989In LaSalle Pump & Supply Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Midland Railroad Co., Inc., 433 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 435 So.2d 450 (La.1983), we discussed the business records exception to the hearsay rule under Louisiana jurisprudence. 1986Co., 433 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982), writ denied, 435 So.2d 450 (La.1983), we set forth the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule: “(1) persons concerned with recording the information must be unavailable for testimony, or production of such persons would be a needless burden; (2) the first collected record available or useable by the court is introduced; (3) the records are identified at the trial by one familiar with the bookkeeping procedure; and (4) the evidence seems reliable in light of the following factors (a) contemporaneousness of the entry with the o | 2 | 1986–1989 |
LaSalle Pump & Supply Co., Inc. v. LOUISIANA MIDLAND R.
green
2 sentences1989In LaSalle Pump & Supply Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Midland Railroad Co., Inc., 433 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 435 So.2d 450 (La.1983), we discussed the business records exception to the hearsay rule under Louisiana jurisprudence. 1986Co., 433 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3 Cir.1982), writ denied, 435 So.2d 450 (La.1983), we set forth the requirements of the business records exception to the hearsay rule: “(1) persons concerned with recording the information must be unavailable for testimony, or production of such persons would be a needless burden; (2) the first collected record available or useable by the court is introduced; (3) the records are identified at the trial by one familiar with the bookkeeping procedure; and (4) the evidence seems reliable in light of the following factors (a) contemporaneousness of the entry with the o | 2 | 1986–1989 |
Herlitz Const. Co. v. Clegg Concrete, Inc.
green
2 sentences1987Herlitz Construction Co. v. Clegg Concrete, Inc., 378 So.2d 1002 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979). 1981In Herlitz Const. Co. v. Clegg Concrete, Inc., 378 So.2d 1002 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979), the state of the law on the admissibility of business records was summarized: "The business records exception to the hearsay rule, as all other exceptions, is predicated upon considerations of reliability and necessity. | 2 | 1981–1987 |
State v. Phagans
green
2 sentences1984State v. Phagans, 412 So.2d 580 (La.1982); State v. Perniciaro, 374 So.2d 1244 (La.1979); State v. Martin, 356 So.2d 1370 (La.1978). [2] The ruling of the trial court accepting the date of June 6, 1980, as the date of recapture after Smith's escape is in error. 1983State v. Phagans, 412 So.2d 580 (La.1982). | 2 | 1983–1984 |
Council of City of New Orleans v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015As articulated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Council of New Orleans v. Washington, 09-1067 (La.5/29/09), 9 So.3d 854 , “[t]he well-settled | jurisprudence of this court establishes that as a general matter, appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed.” Id. at 856 . 2015As articulated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Council of New Orleans v. Washington, 09-1067 (La.5/29/09), 9 So.3d 854 , “[t]he well-settled | jurisprudence of this court establishes that as a general matter, appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time, which are not pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed.” Id. at 856 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Dressner
green
1 sentence2015The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 16 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. 16 State v. Dressner, 081366, p. 15 (La.7/6/10), 45 So.3d 127, 137-38 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bishop v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2013Bishop v. Shaw, 43,137 (La.App.2d Cir.3/12/08), 978 So.2d 568 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Delcambre v. Price
green
1 sentence2013Delcambre v. Price, 99-0223, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/24/99), 738 So.2d 593, 595 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Tritt v. Gares
green
1 sentence2013LSA-C.C.P. art. 967 uses the conjunctive in requiring that the evidence offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment be not only admissible, but it must also affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify to matters stated in the affidavit, and, more significantly, it must be made “on personal knowledge.” Therefore, the fact that evidence may be admissible is not the same as saying that it is made based on personal knowledge and is not sufficient in itself to satisfy the LSA-C.C.P. art. 967 personal knowledge requirement. [Citation omitted.] Tritt v. Gar | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Brooks v. Reimonenq
green
2 sentences2011Recently, we addressed the business records exception in Brooks v. Reimonenq, 2010-0296 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/21/10) , 44 So.3d 824 . 2011Recently, we addressed the business records exception in Brooks v. Reimonenq, 2010-0296 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/21/10) , 44 So.3d 824 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carroll v. Coleman
neutral
1 sentence2004Carroll v. Coleman, 27,861 (La.App.2d Cir.01/24/96), 666 So.2d 1264 ; Fidele v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 00-1934 (La.App. 5th Cir.04/11/01), 786 So.2d 147 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
National Information Services v. Gottsegen
green
1 sentence2004National Information Services, Inc. v. Gottsegen, 98-528, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 737 So.2d 909, 914-915 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Fidele v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Carroll v. Coleman, 27,861 (La.App.2d Cir.01/24/96), 666 So.2d 1264 ; Fidele v. Crescent Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 00-1934 (La.App. 5th Cir.04/11/01), 786 So.2d 147 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Judd v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development
green
1 sentence2002This court has stated that "[w]hile (803(6)) requires that a custodian or qualified witness testify that the requirements of the business records exception have been met, there is no requirement that the `qualified witness' must have personally participated in or observed the creation of the document." Judd v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development, 95-1052 (La.11/27/95), 663 So.2d 690, 696 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ruddock v. JEFFERSON FIRE CIV. SERV. BD.
green
1 sentence1999In Ruddock v. Jefferson Parish Fire Civil Service Bd., 96-831 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/28/97), 688 So.2d 112, 116 , this circuit adopted the definition of a "qualified witness" set forth in Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis, 567 So.2d 122, 129 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1990). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Lennix v. Labee
neutral
2 sentences1996La.C.E. art. 803(6) allows the admission of business records provided they are kept in the ordinary course of business, as shown by the testimony of a custodian of the records or other qualified witness. *1389 In Lennix v. Labee, we upheld the admission of medical bills based on the business records exception. 94-748 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2/15/95), 652 So.2d 50, 54 , writ denied, 95-678 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 594 . 1996La.C.E. art. 803(6) allows the admission of business records provided they are kept in the ordinary course of business, as shown by the testimony of a custodian of the records or other qualified witness. *1389 In Lennix v. Labee, we upheld the admission of medical bills based on the business records exception. 94-748 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2/15/95), 652 So.2d 50, 54 , writ denied, 95-678 (La. 4/28/95), 653 So.2d 594 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Lennix v. Labee neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| United States v. Thomas N. Moore green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Thomas N. Moore v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Gilchrist v. Ozone Spring Water Co. neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Cole v. Celotex Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Southern Cty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bryant green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| American Supply Co. v. Genina Marine Services, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Newspaper Production Co. v. Perry green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh v. Dedman green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Crosby v. Little River Sand & Gravel Development green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Savage neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Goldstein neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Launey green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Roche green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Junegain neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Corey green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.