In re Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)
Creditor’s electronic business records were properly not admitted into evidence sua sponte, resulting in judgment for the debtor.
Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Lozen International, LLC., 285 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2002)
- Bills of lading are business records. Rule 803(6) allows the admission of business records when “two foundational facts are proved: (1) the writing is made or transmitted by a person with knowledge at or near the time of the incident recorded, and (2) the record is kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity.” [citation omitted]
- An internal company e-mail authored by one employee and forwarded by a second employee who incorporates and adopts the contents of the original message can be admissible as an adoptive admission under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).
In re Bennett, 298 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2002)
Application of the parol evidence rule under California law.
Domingo v. T.K., 289 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2002)
Medical testimony inadmissible under Daubert.
In re King Street Investments, Inc., 219 B.R. 848 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1998)
Withdrawal of objection operates as a waiver on appeal. Must also state specific grounds for objection, and grounds must be correct.
FTC v. Figgie International, Inc., 994 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1110 (1994)
5 part test to FRE 803 (24)
Brinderson-Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc., 971 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914 (1993)
1) Under Cal. contract law, the parol evidence analysis governing this case is divided into two initial inquiries: (1) was the writing intended to be an integration, i.e., a complete and final expression of the parties’ agreement, precluding any evidence of collateral agreements; and (2) is the agreement susceptible of the meaning contended for by the party offering the evidence? Gerdlund v. Electronic Dispensing
2) However, Cal. Also recognizes one of the broad exceptions to the parol evidence rule. Because “[n]o contract should ever be interpreted and enforced with a meaning that neither party gave it,” ...parol evidence may be introduced to show the meaning of the express terms of the written contract.
3) To avoid completely eviscerating the parol evidence rule, however, there must be reasonable harmony between the parol evidence and the integrated contract for the evidence to be admissible.
Tongil Co., Ltd. v. Vessel Hyundai Innovator, 968 F.2d 999 (9th Cir. 1992)
FRE 803(6) - may not use declarations to authenticate business records - must use live witnesses.
Cooper v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1991)
Evidence of dissimilar accidents admissible for impeachment
Rogers v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 922 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1991)
Exclusion of testimony - balancing FRE 702 and 403(b)
U.S. v. Hadley, 918 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1990)
Test for allowing prior bad acts into evidence - FRE 404(b)
In re Burg, 103 B.R. 222 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)
Declarations may not substitute for direct evidence
In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1989)
Bankruptcy Court may take judicial notice of underlying records.
Oki America Inc. v. Microtech Int’l, Inc. 872 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1989)
Pleadings may give rise to admissible admissions despite the hearsay rule
In re Blumer, 95 B.R. 143 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1988)
Judicial notice
