The circumstances under which a statement of an employee or agent is treated as an employer's or principal's vicarious admission that is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence.

Powers v. J.B. Michael & Co., 329 F.2d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 1964) (holding, in plaintiff driver's action against defendant contractor for negligence, that evidence, showing that the defendant put up on the premises subsequent....Although the rule limiting the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures bars the use of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in the product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction, subsequent remedial measures are admissible to show ownership or control.

United States v. Koziy, 728 F.2d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding, in plaintiff US government's action against defendant for revocation of citizenship and cancellation of certificate of naturalization, that the trial....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) and comparable State rules create a hearsay exception for statements in an authenticated document that is more than a certain number of year old, typically twenty years.

United States v. Robinson, 161 F.3d 463, 467-468 (7th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the April 18 armed bank robbery where such evidence demonstrated the similarities between the manner in which the armed bank robberies were carried out, thus proving identity by...If another crime or wrong is offered under the second sentence of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show the identity of an actor, wrongdoer, or defendant (e.g., to show that a criminal defendant rather than someone else committed the crime for which defendant is on trial), the other crime or wrong and the act, wrong, or crime at issue at trial must have been committed in a distinctive as well as similar fashion.