Legal Opinion
Condus v. Howard Savings Bank
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided December 4, 1997No. Civ. 89-5131(WGB), Civ. 91-2465(WGB) and Civ. 90-2397(WGB)PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BASSLER, District Judge.
Defendants object to the introduction into evidence of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 57, 67, and 68 on the ground that they constitute inadmissible hearsay. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ objection is overruled.
I. BACKGROUND
In early 1990, the Governance Committee of Howard Savings Bank (“Howard”) hired Speer & Associates (“Speer”) to make an independent assessment of the quality of Howard’s credit administration process and the adequacy of Howard’s loan loss reserves. (Tr. 2:232-33.) James Olson was the Speer representative who was responsible for the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. Leonard A. PelulloCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Richard M. Lippay v. Dean C. Christos Commonwealth of Pa. Dean C. ChristosCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Peter Licavoli, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Paul F. PolishanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
- Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. v. American National InsuranceDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2012
- In Re Cgr Investors Ltd. PartnershipUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- United States v. PolishanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003