HOGAN ET AL.

v.

IVOR B. CLARK CO., INC.

Citator

Cited By (38 total)

• United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981)
  …s’ general “violation of due process” assertion to be distinguishable from their Sixth Amendment argument. As support for their double jeopardy assertion, appellants rely on dictum in United States v. Hayutin, 398 F. 2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 961, 89 S.Ct. 400, 21 L.Ed.2d 374 [*992] (1968), subsequent appeal sub nom. United States v. Nash, 414 F. 2d 234 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 940, 90 S.Ct. 375, 24 L.Ed.2d 242 (1969). That court stated that the danger or prejudice from substitution…
• Coughlin v. Capitol Cement Co., 571 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1978)
  …r other qualified witness . . .. [emphasis added] There can be no doubt but that the party who seeks to introduce written evidence must in some way authenticate it. Grey v. First National Bank of Dallas, 393 F. 2d 371, 386 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 961, 89 S.Ct. 398, 21 L.Ed.2d 374 (1968). We agree that under the exception, [t]he testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness who can explain the record-keeping of the organization is essential. If the witness cannot vouch that the requireme…
• United States v. Kahn, 472 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …11; United States v. White, 225 F.Supp. 514, 519-521 (D.D.C.1963), rev’d on other grounds, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 349 F. 2d 965 (1965). We noted our approval of this rule in United States v. Hayutin, 398 F. 2d 944, 953 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, [*282] 393 U.S. 961, 89 S.Ct. 400, 21 L.Ed.2d 374 (1968), and we reiterate that approval today. While we hold that exclusion of the statement under any event was not reversible error, the proper course should have been to confront Tompkins with it on cross-examination,…