M. Parpis Food Distributors, Inc. v. Wetzler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that police officer authenticated store surveillance video by cross-referencing time on receipt found on scene with time stamp on video
• holding that police officer authenticated store surveillance video by cross-referencing time on receipt found on scene with time stamp on video
• explaining that Rule 901 “merely requires some evidence sufficient to support a finding that evidence in question is what the proponent claims”
• providing that the receipt with a date and time stamp matched the date and time stamp of the store surveillance videotaped recording of the appellant purchasing the items
• relying on date and time on surveillance videotape and part of circumstantial evidence used to authenticate
• noting the State could have done more to authenticate the video

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).