Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite National Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co., 339 N.W.2d 59.

37 citing documents.

Snowman Construction, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
803(6) encompasses these requirements); see also Nat’l
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
803(6); see Nat’l 11 Bauer also contends that “the FBI report contained inadmissible hearsay” because it “incorporated” the cell-phone data and that, therefore, “[p]ermitting [the report’s] admission and allowing [the FBI agent] to testify regarding its contents” was improper.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee Vick, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Michael Lee Vick, Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In Re the Marriage of: Minn. Ct. App. 2025
803(6) (articulating the requirements for the business- records exception); see also Nat’l
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Distinctive Design Build, LLC v. Thomas Nelson, Installed Building Solutions II, LLC, ... Minn. Ct. App. 2024
ecord exception, three requirements must be met: (1) “the evidence was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity,” (2) “it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,” and (3) “the foundation for [the] evidence is shown by the custodian or other qualified witness.” Nat’l Minn. R. Evid.
LVNV Funding, LLC, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See Nat’l (holding “it is not necessary that the person preparing” business records “testify as to their contents” so long as the testifying witness is qualified).
Midland Funding LLC, et al., Respondents, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
803(6), 901(a); Nat’l Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigeration Co. , (holding that district court should be guided by certain principles relating to whether evidence was prepared for presentation in case being tried, whether report was made by independent agency or hired agency, when report was made, and nature of organization preparing the report).
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Patricia Ann Shepard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ernest Malisheske, Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ernest Malisheske, Great West Casualty Company, Intervenor v. Kevin Kortan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Janice Kaunas Samsing Revocable Trust v. Arthur D. Walsh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See also Nat’l (providing that the business-records exception requires foundation for the document’s admissibility to be laid by a qualified witness).
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ahmadani Hassan Mohamed v. Eric Elijah Aaron Minn. Ct. App. 2015
803(6); see also Nat’l (stating that the business records exception requires foundational testimony by a qualified witness).
FIA Card Services, N. A. v. Charles T. Gholl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
FIA Card Services, N. A. v. Charles T. Gholl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
In re the Welfare of the Child of J.K.T. 814 N.W.2d 76 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Nat’l Tea Co. v. Tyler Refrigera *96 tion Co.
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Child of Simon 662 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Nat’l Tea Co., (stating that “[t]he testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness who can explain the recordkeeping of his organization is ordinarily essential” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore System 488 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kronebusch v. MVBA Harvestore System 488 N.W.2d 490 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Kohn v. La Manufacture Francaise Des Pneumatiques Michelin 476 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Kohn v. La Manufacture Francaise Des Pneumatiques Michelin 476 N.W.2d 184 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
803(6) required foundation by a custodian or other qualified witness that the evidence was kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and that it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation
Matter of Martin 458 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Matter of Martin 458 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Theissen-Nonnemacher, Inc. v. Dutt 393 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Theissen-Nonnemacher, Inc. v. Dutt 393 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Benson v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In the former case, is instructive.
A & L Coating Specialties Corp. v. Meyers Printing Co. 374 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
A & L Coating Specialties Corp. v. Meyers Printing Co. 374 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by