Moore v. Korte

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because the “loan documents were offered to establish the existence of a contract and the terms of that contract,” they were not hearsay under substantially similar South Carolina Rule of Evidence 801
• rejecting the argument that a witness did not have sufficient knowledge under Rule 901(b)(1
• \The authentication requirement does not demand that the proponent of . . . evidence conclusively demonstrate [its] genuineness . . . .\
• “The plain language of [South Carolina Rule of Evidence] 803(6) allows for the admission of ‘[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation,’ not testimony describing such a document. We hold Rule 803(6
• \'[T]he burden to authenticate . . . is not high' and requires only that the proponent 'offer[ ] a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.'\ (alternations in original
• \'[T]he burden to authenticate . . . is not high' and requires only that the proponent 'offer[ ] a satisfactory foundation from which the jury could reasonably find that the evidence is authentic.'\ (alterations in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).