In a message dated 12/13/02 9:48:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> which gave various necessary
> conditions for something to be a record "from a judicial standpoint".

The conditions come from the Federal Rules of Evidence 803 (6). The book I
cited contains numerous US judicial decisions concerning records and that in
some cases further refines the conditions.

Here is but one example of the cases provided

Hill v Joseph T. Ryerson & Son
268 S.E.2d 296 (W.Va 1980)

"the court concluded that a number painted on a piece of pipe by a warehouse
employee was admissible as a business record of the employer, even though the
pipe had subsequently passed into the hands of a purchaser"

My point being that the US judicial system is continually redefining (or
should that be refining?) what is a record. Yes we have standard definitions
but in many cases the court system will define in specific cases what is or
is not a record.

That's what makes this profession fun.


List archives at
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance