If any business, institution, member of a profession or calling, or any department or agency of government, in the regular course of business or activity has kept or recorded any memorandum, writing, entry, print, representation or combination thereof, of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, and in the regular course of business has caused any or all of the same to be recorded, copied, or reproduced by any photographic, photostatic, microfilm, micro-card, miniature photographic, or other process which accurately reproduces or forms a durable medium for so reproducing the original, the original may be destroyed in the regular course of business unless its preservation is required by law. Such reproduction, when satisfactorily identified, is as admissible in evidence as the original itself in any judicial or administrative proceeding whether the original is in existence or not and an enlargement or facsimile of such reproduction is likewise admissible in evidence if the original reproduction is in existence and available for inspection under direction of court. The introduction of a reproduced record, enlargement, or facsimile does not preclude admission of the original. This subsection 11 So in original. Probably should be “section”. shall not be construed to exclude from evidence any document or copy thereof which is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
670
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1948–2022 · leading case:
State v. Ramirez
State v. Ramirez (1976)
nmctapp · cites it 8×
“See also the Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (1970). Public records were recognized as an exception to hearsay at common law and have been the subject of many statutes.”
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (1980)
paed · cites it 6×
“The Impact of Rule 104(a); Will Inadmissible Evidence Suffice? In determining whether the diaries and memoranda qualify under 803(6), we must, at the threshold, confront the question whether such a determination depends upon admissible evidence.”
Richardson v. Perales (1971)
scotus · cites it 2×
“2d 613, 615 (1959), and in so doing, relied on the Business Records Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1732 . 8. Past treatment by reviewing courts of written medical reports in social security disability cases is revealing.”
United States v. Paul v. Oates (1977)
ca2 · cites it 2×
“In particular, the novelty of the prefatory language applicable to FRE 803(6) (“The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule”) is best appreciated by recalling that this rule’s predecessor, 28 U.S.C. § 1732 , did not merely make evidence meeting its requirements “not…”
Archibald Lyles v. United States (1958)
cadc · cites it 4×
“2d 297 (1944), following the great weight of authority in federal courts (and in state courts with similar statutes), held that the written record of an expert medical opinion as to a psychiatric disorder is not admissible under the Federal Shop Book Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1732…”
United States v. Ironworkers Local 86 (1971)
ca9 · cites it 4×
“IV 1961)] is to provide, in the case of business records, an exception to the hearsay rule, and to provide an acceptable substitute for specific authentication of each business record.”
People v. Smith (1990)
ill · cites it 2×
“( 28 U.S.C. § 1732 ; Ware, 247 F.2d at 700 .”
United States v. Joseph E. Smith (1975)
cadc · cites it 5×
“The business record exception to the hearsay rule, unlike most other exceptions, has been codified for some time, 10 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (a) (1970) and is *963 contained in the new Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) in a form similar to that in which it appeared in the United States…”
United States v. Cameron (2012)
ca1 · cites it 2×
“1561 (current version, as amended, at 28 U.S.C. § 1732 (2012)), which allowed the admission in federal court of any "memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event" as long as such record "was made in the regular course of any business.”
United States v. Johns-Manville Corporation (1964)
paed · cites it 9×
“Concerning the foundation upon which documents may be admitted under the Federal Business Records Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1732 (a), the federal courts have held that it is not a requirement in a criminal case that the person who actually prepared the subject record testify concerning…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1732(a) — 8 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.