46 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
Discover Bank v. Smithgreen2 sentences2023This business records exception “allows the admission of evidence without the necessity of identifying, locating, and producing as witnesses the individuals who made each entry in the regular course of business.” Discover Bank v. Smith, 326 S.W.3d 120, 123 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (citation omitted). 2015Such an objection is not sufficient to deny the admissibility of the evidence.” Id; see also Discover Bank v. Smith, 326 S.W.3d at 124-26 (an objection that a records custodian “has not testified sufficient to satisfy the business records exception to hearsay,” was not enough to preserve objections for failure to satisfy specific business records requirements); Catroppa v. Metal Bldg. | 3 | 3 |
Zundel v. Bommaritogreen2 sentences2016State v. Anderson, 413 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Mo.1967); Zundel v. Bommarito, 778 S.W.2d 954, 958 (Mo.App.1989) (“The business records exception to the hearsay rule applies only to documents generated by the business itself.... 2012State v. Anderson, 413 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Mo.1967); Zundel v. Bommarito, 778 S.W.2d 954, 958 (Mo.App.1989) (“The business records exception to the hearsay rule applies only to documents generated by the business itself.... | 2 | 3 |
In Re Estate of Newmangreen2 sentences2025Um, she had . . . over 30, I’m not even sure how many, not all of them were written up, but, um, she was placed on suspension at one point 3 “The business records exception allows the admission of evidence without the necessity of producing as witnesses those individuals who made the entries of record.” In re Est. of Newman, 58 S.W.3d 640, 647 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001). 10 for tardiness, and then, came back from suspension and continued to have a 0% on[-]time rate to work. 2010Section 490.680; In re Estate of Newman, 58 S.W.3d 640, 646 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2016State v. Anderson, 413 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Mo.1967); Zundel v. Bommarito, 778 S.W.2d 954, 958 (Mo.App.1989) (“The business records exception to the hearsay rule applies only to documents generated by the business itself.... 2012State v. Anderson, 413 S.W.2d 161, 165 (Mo.1967); Zundel v. Bommarito, 778 S.W.2d 954, 958 (Mo.App.1989) (“The business records exception to the hearsay rule applies only to documents generated by the business itself.... | 2 | 2 |
Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.green2 sentences2016Although our supreme court left open “the question of the proper scope of the common law public records exception” as to hearsay in Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 57 (Mo. banc 1999), we find guidance in that court’s recent business records decision and cases cited therein: [A] document that is prepared by one business cannot qualify for the business records exception merely based on another business’s records custodian testifying that it appears in the files of the business that did not create the record. 2008With regard to this exception, Company argues that Judge White’s dissenting opinion in Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corporation confirms that section 490.220 does not apply to every document in the file of a government office. 996 S.W.2d 47, 70 (Mo. banc 1999). | 2 | 2 |
K.C. v. Platte County Juvenile Officegreen2 sentences2013See In Interest of J.M.C., 920 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Mo.App.W.D.1996). 2000In Interest of J.M.C., 920 S.W.2d 173, 175 (Mo.App. | 2 | 2 |
Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Companygreen2 sentences1983Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Co., 328 S.W.2d 677, 683 (Mo. banc 1959); State v. Light, 636 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Mo.App.1982). 1978As stated in Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Company, 328 S.W.2d 677, 681 (Mo. banc 1959), “The Business Records as Evidence Law abrogated many of the antiquated and technical common law rules regarding the admission of business records in evidence and expanded the operation of the common law rule for the admission of such records as an exception to the hearsay rule. * * * Therefore, an objection to a business record on the ground that it is hearsay is unavailing if the record meets the requirements of the act for admission in evidence.” Defendant advances no reason why he contends the report was no | 2 | 2 |
CACH, LLC v. Askewgreen2 sentences2024Indeed, a document prepared by one business “cannot qualify for the business records exception merely based on another business’s records custodian testifying that it appears in the files of the business that did not create the 16 record.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 2023Even if such an assertion had been made, "a document that is prepared by one business cannot qualify for the business records exception merely based on another business's records custodian testifying that it appears in the files of the business that did not create the record." CACH, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58, 63 (Mo. banc 2012). | 1 | 4 |
Asset Acceptance v. Lodgegreen2 sentences2024Applying the relevant statues, “[t]he qualification of records within the business records exception to the hearsay rule requires testimony as to the mode of preparation of the record and that it was made at or near the time of the act, condition or event it purports to show.” Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (internal citation omitted). 2024“A witness is qualified to testify regarding a business record if he or she has sufficient knowledge of the business operation and methods of keeping records of the business to give the records probity.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2007See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 56 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 2 |
Helton v. Director of Revenuegreen2 sentences1999Helton v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 944 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Mo.App.1997). 1999Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Logan.green2 sentences1997Thus, as noted in Naucke , despite the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions, hospital records have been admitted under the business records exception (State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981)), as well as a dying declaration,(State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910)); see also State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939)(prior reported testimony). 1997Thus, as noted in Naucke , despite the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions, hospital records have been admitted under the business records exception (State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981)), as well as a dying declaration,(State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910)); see also State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939)(prior reported testimony). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Carruthgreen1 sentence2024See e.g., Henderson, 920 S.W.2d at 590 (applying the business records exception to admit a police report in a criminal case); State v. Carruth, 166 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (applying the business records exception 10 to admit fingerprint cards in a criminal case). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2024See e.g., Henderson, 920 S.W.2d at 590 (applying the business records exception to admit a police report in a criminal case); State v. Carruth, 166 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (applying the business records exception 10 to admit fingerprint cards in a criminal case). | 1 | 1 |
Dickerson v. Director of Revenuegreen1 sentence2024Section 490.692 further provides that business records may be admissible “upon the affidavit of the person who would otherwise provide the prerequisites of sections 490.660 to 490.690, [and] that the records attached to the affidavit were kept as required by section 490.680.” Thus, Section 490.692 “allows the custodian or other qualified witness to establish the requisite foundation for admission of the records by affidavit rather than by testifying at trial.” Dickerson v. Dir. of Revenue, 957 S.W.2d 478, 480 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Davolt v. Highlandgreen1 sentence2024The statute makes clear that competent evidence is prefaced by the relevance of the evidence, and the circuit court is required to make a reliability determination pertaining to the source of the records and the method and time of preparation of the documents. § 490.680; Discover Bank v. Smith, 326 S.W.3d 120, 123 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (quoting Davolt v. Highland, 119 S.W.3d 118, 134 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (“When the [aforementioned] enumerated statutory requirements are met, ‘the statute invests the record with a presumptive 9 verity, and so excepts them from the hearsay rule.’”)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McPikegreen1 sentence2019Appellant insists the jury should have resolved whether Appellant suffered from 3 Appellant entered the BJC behavioral health records under the business records exception to hearsay, § 490.680. 8 diminished capacity because “it is the exclusive role of the jury to weigh the credibility of the evidence and the trial court must instruct and give verdict directors to support this role.” State v. McPike, 514 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citing State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Mo. banc 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Missouri v. Bruce Piercegreen1 sentence2019Appellant insists the jury should have resolved whether Appellant suffered from 3 Appellant entered the BJC behavioral health records under the business records exception to hearsay, § 490.680. 8 diminished capacity because “it is the exclusive role of the jury to weigh the credibility of the evidence and the trial court must instruct and give verdict directors to support this role.” State v. McPike, 514 S.W.3d 86, 88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (citing State v. Jackson, 433 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Mo. banc 2014)). | 1 | 1 |
Saint Louis University v. Gearygreen1 sentence2016We would ordinarily review such a claim for an abuse of discretion, Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC v. Harris, 386 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Mo.App.2012), and prejudice to,appellant, Saint Louis University v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Mo. banc 2009); however, Mother’s claim is not preserved for our review. | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2016We would ordinarily review such a claim for an abuse of discretion, Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC v. Harris, 386 S.W.3d 864, 866 (Mo.App.2012), and prejudice to,appellant, Saint Louis University v. Geary, 321 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Mo. banc 2009); however, Mother’s claim is not preserved for our review. | 1 | 1 |
Catroppa v. Metal Building Supply, Inc.green1 sentence2015Supply, Inc., 267 S.W.3d 812, 817 (Mo.App.S.D.2008) (a foundation objection was insufficiently specific where the appellant “failed to include any specific deficient foundational element in its objection”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Newlongreen1 sentence2010“The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on questions of admissibility.” State v. Newlon, 216 S.W.3d 180, 186 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Tendai v. Missouri State Board of Registration for the Healing Artsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mahangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aliff v. Codygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alberswerth v. Alberswerthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rhonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sutherlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Cedric L. Roulettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jefferson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodrigo Garcia v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 510995green | 1 | 1 |
| Fermin v. Commodity Futures Trading Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lam v. Iowagreen | 1 | 1 |
| J. Q. v. D. R. L.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colvin
green
2 sentences1997Thus, as noted in Naucke , despite the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions, hospital records have been admitted under the business records exception (State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981)), as well as a dying declaration,(State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910)); see also State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939)(prior reported testimony). 1997Thus, as noted in Naucke , despite the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions, hospital records have been admitted under the business records exception (State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981)), as well as a dying declaration,(State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910)); see also State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939)(prior reported testimony). | 2 | 1992–1997 |
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences1997Thus, as noted in Naucke , despite the confrontation clause of the state and federal constitutions, hospital records have been admitted under the business records exception (State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981)), as well as a dying declaration,(State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910)); see also State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939)(prior reported testimony). 1992Over the years, we have consistently refused to apply the face-to-face language of Section 18(a) literally to exclude evidence admitted under hearsay exceptions, which were truly not “face to face.” See State v. Simpson, 625 S.W.2d 957 (Mo.App.1981) (hospital records admitted under the business records exception); State v. Logan, 344 Mo. 351 , 126 S.W.2d 256 (1939) (prior reported testimony); State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446 , 126 S.W. 448 (1910) (dying declaration). | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Elmore v. C.L.K.
green
2 sentences1992Id. at 92 . 1992Id. at 92 . | 2 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2023“Rather, the admissibility of the electronic data ‘should be determined on the basis of the reliability and accuracy of the process’ used to create and obtain the data.” Id. (quoting State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427 , 430–32 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999)). 2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State of Missouri v. Terrill E. Reynolds
green
1 sentence2023“Rather, the admissibility of the electronic data ‘should be determined on the basis of the reliability and accuracy of the process’ used to create and obtain the data.” Id. (quoting State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427 , 430–32 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
US Bank, N.A., As Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-BC1 v. Roderick E. Smith
green
1 sentence2017Id. .Because we find that the relevant portions of Exhibits 28 and 29 were not inadmissible hearsay, we need not address Vaughn’s arguments as to the effect of the business records exception under section 490.680. . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Albanna v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts
green
2 sentences2010"Medical records relating to observations, treatment, and diagnoses are generally admissible as business records." Tendai v. Missouri State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 161 S.W.3d 358, 366 (Mo. banc 2005), overruled on other grounds by Albanna v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 293 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. banc 2009). 2010“Medical records relating to observations, treatment, and diagnoses are generally admissible as business records.” Tendai v. Missouri State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 161 S.W.3d 358, 366 (Mo. banc 2005), overruled on other grounds by Albanna v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 293 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. banc 2009). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Estate of West v. Moffatt
green
1 sentence2010Estate of West, 32 S.W.3d at 653 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Glass v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Zink v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Calhoon green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Larson green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Nelson v. Waxman green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Thrasher green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Naucke green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. v. Mehra green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Martorelli green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Angotti v. Celotex Corp. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.