Keith Gulbranson v. Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range Railway Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that to admit the evidence under the federal equivalent of rule 5.801(d)(2)(D), the proffering party must “lay a foundation to show that an otherwise excludible statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment”
• noting that to admit the evidence under the federal equivalent of rule 5.801(d)(2)(D), the proffering party must “lay a foundation to show that an otherwise excludible statement relates to a matter within the scope of the agent’s employment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).