against it, see, e.g., Van Westrienen v. Americontinental Collection Corp., 94 F.Supp.2d 1087, 1109 (D. Or. 2000), but a finding of adoptive approval of a third party’s statement must be decided in light of the circumstances surrounding the statement’s use. Shemman v. 1074, 1078 (10th Cir. 1985) (finding that newspaper articles were admissible under rule 801(d)(2)(B) where the defendant reprinted and distributed articles that made- representations about the defendant’s financial condition because “[b]y- reprinting the newspaper articles and distributing them to persons with whom clefendants were doing business, defendants unequivocally manifested their adoption of the inflated statements made in the 'newspaper' articles”); Grundberg v. Upjohn Co., 137 F.R.D. 365, 370 (D. Utah 1991) (<HOLDING>). Thus, a website link alone cannot be
holding that expert reports were not required to mention the defendant hospital because reports were based upon the actions of hospital physicians recognizing that we have consistently held that a party who wishes to introduce evidence of past false reports of sexual assault bears the threshold burden of establishing the falsity of the past reports holding corporate officer liable as aider and abettor in filing of false reports even though reports were not authorized or approved of by officers holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence holding that a party adopted clinical reports by nonparty physicians when it used the reports to help secure fda approval of new drug