State v. Quincy

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that computerized price records of stolen items were admissible as business records and stating, \It is not necessary that the person who actually made the record provide the foundation.\
• shoplifting arrest record and list of stolen merchandise admissible because it was “created in the regular course of business” and in case matter ever went to court
• “It is axiomatic that shoplifting arrest records are likely to be used in litigation. This fact alone does not mean they cannot fall within the business records exception as a matter of law.”
• shoplifting arrest record and list of stolen merchandise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Howerton
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2015-03-30· cited 23×
• State v. Quincy
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-07-30· cited 16×
• State v. Quincy
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2004-06-14
• In re Welfare of M.R.
  Washington Supreme Court· 2022-10-13

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Brown
  Washington Supreme Court· 1997-07-24· cited 632×
• State v. Bourgeois
  Washington Supreme Court· 1997-11-06· cited 336×
• Cantrill v. American Mail Line, Ltd.
  Washington Supreme Court· 1953-05-08· cited 72×
• State v. Ben-Neth
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1983-05-09· cited 20×
• State v. Rainwater
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1994-08-01· cited 19×
• State v. Byrd
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 1996-09-09· cited 11×