Federal Rule Of Evidence 803(6) (Business Records Exception)

123 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Wheeler v. Officer Sims
  951 F.2d 796· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the refusal to consider a prisoner's written statement at a disciplinary hearing did not violate due process, and that prison records documenting an inmate's physical activity were admissible as business records.
• United States v. Versaint
  849 F.2d 827· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit a police report as substantive evidence, and this error was not harmless.
• United States v. Freidin
  849 F.2d 716· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a memorandum was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) because it was not shown to have been made pursuant to a regular practice of the business, even if it possessed indicia of trustworthiness.
• Ruberto v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  774 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tax Court abused its discretion by not allowing the taxpayers a reasonable opportunity to produce original canceled checks to substantiate their charitable contribution deductions.
• United States v. Houser
  746 F.2d 55· D.C. Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The Court held that the BATF tracer form 7520.5 was inadmissible hearsay and its admission was prejudicial error, requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Viracon, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  736 F.2d 1188· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board's order was not supported by substantial evidence, as the evidence of retaliatory discharge was exceedingly weak and the employer's explanation for the discharge was improperly rejected.
• Eliezer Moshe Malek and Malke Malek v. Fed. Ins. Co.
  994 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the district court committed several evidentiary errors, including excluding relevant testimony, improperly sequestering an expert witness, and allowing impeachment based on religious beliefs, which cumulatively prejudiced the plaintiffs and affected the subst
• Mueller v. Abdnor
  972 F.2d 931· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 1×
• United States v. Gaynor
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-09
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various financial records, a biographical book, and evidence of the defendant's prior FBAR proceedings.
• MHG Hotels, LLC v. Studio 78, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-10-28
  The court held that certain expert opinions, related memoranda, affidavits, and hearsay references to contractor statements are inadmissible, while emails between parties and expert testimony on permit conditions are admissible.
• Fowler v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-16
  The court held that a furnisher's duty to investigate under the FCRA is triggered by notice from a consumer reporting agency, not direct consumer disputes, and that reasonableness of the investigation is a question of fact for certain disputes.
• Brown v. Vivint Solar, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-05-06
  The court held that a spreadsheet summarizing credit application data was admissible as a business record under FRE 803(6) and that its late disclosure under FRCP 37(c)(1) was harmless.
• Anthony v. Anthony
  642 F. Supp. 2d 1366· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-27
  The court held that the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) does not provide a remedy for a creditor's failure to make disclosures when the underlying loan documents are forgeries, as no contractual obligation was formed.
• PT Indonesia Epson Indus. v. Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
  219 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-17
  The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the driver's potential involvement in the cargo hijacking, which impacts the applicability of COGSA's exceptions.
• Romano v. Howarth
  998 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-02
  The court held that the special interrogatories submitted to the jury inaccurately framed the issues and that the admission of the progress notes was improper hearsay.
• United States v. McINTYRE
  997 F.2d 687· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-07
  The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings or its decision regarding juror qualification, and that the admission of certain documents, while potentially erroneous, did not constitute plain
• United States v. Blackburn
  992 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1993-04-22
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to define reasonable doubt or in admitting certain testimony and exhibits, but erred in admitting a specific lab report under the business records exception.
• McFARLANE v. Caterpillar, Inc.
  974 F.2d 176· D.C. Cir.· 1992-09-08
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that a manufacturing defect caused the accident, as they did not adequately negate alternative explanations like driver error or faulty maintenance.
• Tongil Co., Ltd. v. The Vessel "Hyundai Innovator"
  968 F.2d 999· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-09
  The court held that hearsay declarations cannot be used to establish the foundation for admitting business records under Rule 803(6).
• United States v. Franks
  939 F.2d 600· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-24
  The court held that Federal Express records, microfilmed and maintained by the company, were properly admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, even though the custodian lacked personal knowledge of their creation, and their admission did not violate conf
• United States v. Simmons
  773 F.2d 1455· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-30
  The admission of ATF forms and Agent Parker's testimony as hearsay under Fed.R.Evid. 803(24) was improper because trustworthiness and the unavailability of more probative evidence were not established.
• United States v. Moore
  748 F.2d 246· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-19
  The court held that the letter was not inadmissible hearsay because it was offered to prove the falsity of its contents, not the truth of the matter asserted.
• Am. Int'l Pictures, Inc. v. Price Enters., Inc.
  636 F.2d 933· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-22
  The court held that the admission of evidence from 'open' and 'blind' checks and expert testimony on damages was proper, and the damages award was not based on an improper 'fluid recovery' theory.