As used in this section "business" includes every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling, or operation of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.
A record of an act, condition, or event, in so far as relevant, is competent evidence if the custodian or the person who made such record or under whose supervision such record was made 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.
This section shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make the law of this state uniform with those states which enact similar legislation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60
cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: Hunt v. Mayfield, 583 N.E.2d 1349 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989).
Hunt v. Mayfield, 583 N.E.2d 1349 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1989). · cites it 10ד” In Ohio, the admissibility of hospital records is governed by R.C. 2317.40 and its affiliated case law.”
Amf, Inc. v. Mravec, 440 N.E.2d 600 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1981). · cites it 4דSince the Ohio Rules of Evidence went into effect on July 1, 1980, 2 the trial court had the option of applying the statutory business records exception (R.C. 2317.40) or the new evidence rule governing the business records exception to the hearsay rule (Evid.”
In re Est. of Flowers, 2017-Ohio-1310. · cites it 2ד, currently found at R.C. 2317.40, in order to make the evidentiary rules of Ohio uniform to those of other states regarding the admissibility of business records.”
State v. Crager, 844 N.E.2d 390 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2005). · cites it 2דIn Tims , the Ohio Supreme Court held, “The Business Records as Evidence Act, Section 2317.40, Revised Code, which allows the admission into evidence of records without substantiation by the person who actually performed the acts which resulted in such record, is not applicable…”
Ohio v. Tims, 224 N.E.2d 348 (Ohio 1967). · cites it 6דThe basic question raised by this appeal is whether the report of the examination for alleged rape was properly admitted into evidence under the provisions of Section 2317.40, Revised Code (Business Records as Evidence Act).”
Dellenbach v. Robinson, 642 N.E.2d 638 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1993). · cites it 4דPlaintiffs first argument is that the records could not be used at trial without the records custodian testifying to identify the records without violating R.C. 2317.40 2 and 2317.422. 3 Both of these sections of the Revised Code are requirements as to admissibility of records.”
Wasinski v. PECO II, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2615. · cites it 3ד2d 245 , that the purpose of the statute [R.C. 2317.40] was to ‘liberalize and broaden the shop-book rule, recognized at common law as an exception to the general rule excluding hearsay evidence, and to permit the admissions of records regularly kept in the course of business…’”…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Anders, 965 N.E.2d 1056 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2012). · cites it 2דSee also R.C. 2317.40. 1 The business-records exception “is based on the assumption that the records, made in the regular course of business, by those who have a *29 competent knowledge of the facts recorded and a self-interest to be served through the accuracy of the entries…”
State v. Humphries, 607 N.E.2d 921 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1992). · cites it 2ד803(6) and its statutory counterpart, R.C. 2317.40. Evid.R. 803(6) provides: “A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, or conditions, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the…”
Lambert v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 606 N.E.2d 983 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1992). · cites it 4ד*20 I In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts the court erred by refusing to admit into evidence the CT scan reports by Drs.”
State v. Mitchell, 246 N.E.2d 586 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1969). · cites it 6דThe “[Business Records as Evidence] ” statute, Section 2317.40, Revised Code, resulted from that “mercantile inconvenience” concept advanced by Wigmore.”
State v. Fears, 2018-Ohio-1468, 110 N.E.3d 951. · cites it 2דThe question before the court in that case was "whether the report of the examination for alleged rape was properly admitted into evidence under the provisions of Section 2317.40, Revised Code (Business Records as Evidence Act).”
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.