E. C. Ernst, Inc., in No. 79-2290 v. Koppers Company, Inc., in Nos. 79-2184, 79-2320

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that pricing sheets satisfied Rule 803(6) because, among other things, “the sheets were checked for accuracy”
• remanding because District Court failed to make factual findings and thus this Court could not determine how District Court assessed evidence
• rule satisfied by testimony of the custodian

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).