Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 490
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 490.680 (2026)

Records, competent evidence, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  490.680.  Records, competent evidence, when. — A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.

­­--------

(L. 1949 p. 275 § 3)

(1965) Testimony by parts manager of garage was satisfactory foundation for admission of repair bill under requirements of Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act. Langdon v. Koch (A.), 393 S.W.2d 66.

(1968) Held that this section does not make admissible into evidence matters which would be otherwise inadmissible.  Stewart v. Sioux City & New Orleans Barge Lines, Inc.  (Mo.), 431 S.W.2d 205.

(1973) Court held not to have abused discretion in refusing to admit letter in evidence, meaning of language "the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission" discussed. Thomas v. Fred Weber Contractor, Inc. (A.), 498 S.W.2d 811.

(1973) Fact that custodian of record had no personal knowledge of truth of record does not bar admission of record in evidence. Held that person "making the report" not person "offering the recital" must be competent to testify that the recital is correct. Thiens v. Harlan Fruit Co. (A.), 499 S.W.2d 223.

(1975) Although record is admissible as exception to hearsay rule, evidence which would not be competent if offered in person is not admissible. Tri-State Motor Transit Co. v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (A.), 528 S.W.2d 475.

(1976) A trial court has wide discretion in accepting records into evidence once the requirements of this section are satisfied.  State v. Jones (A.), 534 S.W.2d 556.

(1976) To be admissible in a report it must be shown that the report is based on the entrant's own observation or on information of others whose business duty it was to transmit it to the entrant. State v. Boyington (A.), 544 S.W.2d 300.

(1977)  Pathologist reports and autopsy reports constitute admissible business records if statutory requirements are met.  State v. Jennings (A.), 555 S.W.2d 366.

(1987) Letter from plaintiff's doctor to plaintiff's lawyer indicating that plaintiff was injured in bus accident and briefly describing injuries is not admissible pursuant to this section for the letter was not a contemporaneous record of the doctor's observations, diagnosis, treatment, and progress of plaintiff but self-serving statement. Carmack v. BiState Development Agency, 731 S.W.2d 518 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(2000) A 911 tape of victim reporting assault qualified as business record under hearsay rule where qualified witness testified as to tape's identity and mode of preparation and record was made in regular course of police department business.  State v. Edwards, 31 S.W.3d 73 (Mo.App.W.D.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 334 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1951–2024 · leading case: Cach, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cach, LLC v. Askew, 358 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 14× “It sought to have those exhibits admitted into evidence by laying a foundation for these documents as business records pursuant to § 490.680, RSMo 2000. CACH’s sole witness at trial was Diana Eakins, 1 who is the records custodian for Square Two Financial, which owns CACH.”
Alberswerth v. Alberswerth, 184 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “…September 1, but a one day discrepancy has no impact on our conclusion. 20 . All citations to section 490.680 are to § 490.680, RSMo 2000.”
Overmann v. Dir. of Revenue, 975 S.W.2d 183 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 34× “The exhibit also had an affidavit from a Town & Country police officer attesting that he was the custodian of records of the Town and Country police department and that the records were kept as required by section 490.680 RSMo 1994. [2] The certificate of analysis provides that…”
L.A.C. Ex Rel. D.C. v. Ward Parkway Shopping Ctr. Co., 75 S.W.3d 247 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 6× “" Section 490.680, RSMo (2000). Some police records were attached with the IPC incident reports.”
Strong v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 261 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “In particular, Company argues that the CDC documents do not qualify for the business records exception because in introducing them, Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of sections 490.680 and 490.692. Company further contends that the CDC documents do not qualify for the…”
C & W Asset Acquisition, LLC v. Somogyi, 136 S.W.3d 134 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “Appellant argues the trial court erred in excluding certain documents for failing to meet the requirements of Section 490.680. 1 We affirm. The record reveals that on May 9, 1998, Respondent entered into a credit card agreement with MBNA Bank of America (“MBNA”) whereby MBNA…”
State v. Steidley, 533 S.W.3d 762 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “The hospital records undermined Steidley’s credibility, as they contradicted Steidley’s report to an ATF agent that he sustained a head injury on the day of the fire at his home, and his statement to Parsons that he sustained a head injury at Everhart’s.”
State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. 1997). · cites it 8× “§ 490.680, RSMo 1994. Essentially, the Act sets out three requirements that must be met as a predicate to admissibility of a document as a business record: (1) the custodian of records must testify to the record’s identity and mode of preparation; (2) the custodian must testify…”
Klotz v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 311 S.W.3d 752 (Mo. 2010). · cites it 4× “[6] The admissibility of business records is governed by § 490.680, RSMo 2000, which provides: A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its…”
Discover Bank v. Smith, 326 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “In his first point relied on, Appellant takes issue with the trial court’s ruling on the admission of two exhibits 1 which Appellant contends failed to comply with the business records exception to the hearsay rule, particularly section 490.680. 2 Appellant’s second point…”
Joanne Jones, Quincy Dwayne Jones, Chris Jones, & Anthony Jones v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 508 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “Where the status of the evidence indicates it was prepared elsewhere and was merely received and held in a file but was not made in the ordinary course of the holder’s business it is inadmissible and not *164 within a business record exception to the hearsay rule under §…”
Angotti v. Celotex Corp., 812 S.W.2d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10× “In its final point, Celotex argues that the trial court erred in admitting certain exhibits because said exhibits were hearsay and/or opinion testimony and were not admissible pursuant to the business records exception of § 490.680, RSMo 1986. Section 490.680, RSMo 1986,…”
Show all 334 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.