Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Walter Lindheimer v. United Fruit Company

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided November 20, 1969No. 32468_1Published

1ConcurrenceLumbard, Chief Judge

(concurring) :

I concur. My concurrence rests on the grounds that error was commited here, but that it was harmless.

Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943), stands for the proposition that the Federal Business Records Act is limited by the common law concept of “trustworthiness” ; in part it requires that those preparing the reports be disinterested in the events they record and that, if there be a motive to falsify, it is checked by safeguards in the normal business procedures involved. Lindheimer argues convincingly.that the minutes of the safety committee,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
  2. Curtis Taylor v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
  3. United States v. New York Foreign Trade Zone Operators, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
  4. Emanuel Puggioni v. Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., and Third-Party v. Turner & Blanchard, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  5. Dominick Vaccaro v. Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., and Third-Party American Stevedores, Inc., and Anderson-Linton Lumber Co., Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1968

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API