Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

United States v. Shepherd

739 F.2d 510 (10th Cir. 1984)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
United States v. Shepherd

8 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Hathaway

    798 F.2d 902 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 195 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where records are incomplete or missing, "[o]nce a foundation is laid, in the absence of specific and credible evidence of untrustworthiness, the proper approach is to admit the evidence and permit the jury to determine the weight to be given the records."

    The significance lies entirely in the fact that the words were spoken. Thus, the statement does not fall within the Rule 801(c) definition of hearsay nor would the purposes of the hearsay rule be served by treating it as hearsay. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) (hearsay rule inapplicable to statement which was, by its nature, neither true nor false). B. FNCF Business Records

  2. Tenorio v. Pitzer

    No. Civ. 12-01295 JCH-KBM (D.N.M. Feb. 19, 2019)

    Cf. United States v. Rutland, 705 F.3d 1238, 1253 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining that statements were instructions not offered for their truth, and thus admissible); Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1128 (10th 2005) ("Statement (4) was an order. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) (orders are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth)."). The Court will thus deny Plaintiff's motion in limine III.

  3. Wood v. Farmington City

    910 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (D. Utah 2012)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that the suspect had "made hostile motions with the gun—motioning the gun from side to side"

    This directive does not constitute hearsay because it does not involve an assertion. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir.1984) (“An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth. The orders or instructions were offered to show that they occurred rather than to prove the truth of something asserted.

  4. Golden Years Homestead, Inc. v. Buckland (S.D.Ind. 2006)

    466 F. Supp. 2d 1059 (S.D. Ind. 2006)   Cited 4 times
    Finding no substantive Due Process violation in heavily regulated nursing care industry because activities were "consistent with a zealous adversarial posture arising from the regulatory mission"

    We accept Defendants' proffer and shall consider the evidence before us. See, e.g.,United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) ("An out-of-court statement is hearsay only if it is offered for its truth. An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth.

  5. Servants of Paraclete v. Great American

    866 F. Supp. 1560 (D.N.M. 1994)   Cited 135 times
    Denying motion to consolidate where "actions involve several separate factual issues, parties, and legal questions"

    In addition, because questions are neither true nor false, Plaintiff and the Does do not offer Ms. Soroos' questions "to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); United States v. Vest, 842 F.2d 1319, 1330 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 965, 109 S.Ct. 489, 102 L.Ed.2d 526 (1988); accord United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) ("An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth."). To the extent that paragraphs 3-5 of the May Soroos Affidavit contain the out-of-court statements of Ms. Maria Monty, Fr. Joe McNamara, and Fr. Michael Foley, that each has no knowledge of the Servants' insurance coverage from 1969 to 1971, these statements are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth.

  6. U.S. v. McAlpine

    832 F. Supp. 1426 (D. Kan. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    Prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Guidelines, the circuit courts had uniformly held that reliable hearsay evidence could be considered in the sentencing determination. See e.g. U.S. v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 515 (10th Cir. 1984) (the sentencing judge may properly consider uncorroborated hearsay evidence that the defendant has had an opportunity to rebut or explain.) .

  7. Moore v. Miles (In re Estate of Moore)

    53 Kan. App. 2d 667 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 11 times

    "An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth." United States v. Shepherd , 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984). As such, Roxie's statements are part of the res gestae of the act of signing and are not treated as hearsay.

  8. State v. Kutz

    2003 WI App. 205 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 92 times   12 Legal Analyses
    In State v. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, 267 Wis. 2d 531, 671 N.W.2d 660, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed the applicability of Wis. Stat. § 908.03(3) in the context of a victim's statement of fear of the defendant.

    These cases cited by the State are: United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999); State v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586-87 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1410 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 868 n. 18 (7th Cir. 1985); UnitedStates v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v.Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 833-34 (6th Cir. 1982); Butler v. United States, 481 A.2d 431, 438 n. 10 (D.C. 1984). ¶ 42. We can see no logical reason why the grammatical form of an utterance-whether a declarative sentence, command/instruction or question-should conclusively determine whether an utterance is intended by the speaker as an assertion within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 908.01(1).