RAINSBERGER v. BENNER

RAINSBERGER v. BENNER

Plaintiff:	WILLIAM RAINSBERGER
Defendant:	CHARLES BENNER
Case Number:	1:2016cv00103
Filed:	January 12, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge:	William T. Lawrence
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 18, 2019	Filing 124 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S 115 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - For the reasons explained above, Benner's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Filing No. 115 ), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court finds the proffered expert testimony as limited by this Entry, is relevant under Rule 401 and will not be unduly prejudicial or confusing under Rule 403. The Court limits the testimony of Rainsberger's police practices experts to describing sound professional standar ds and opining as to how Benner strayed from those standards during his investigation. The experts are not be permitted to give conclusions of law, opine on an ultimate issue, or judge the credibility of witnesses. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/18/2019. (NAD)
July 18, 2017	Filing 73 ORDER denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. This cause remains set for trial on September 11, 2017. The final pretrial conference will be held on August 10, 2017. The parties are reminded of their pretrial filing obligations set forth in secti on VIII of the case management plan Dkt. No. 12 . In addition, the parties shall confer and file a joint issue instruction at least one week prior to the final pretrial conference. The issue instruction serves as the Court's brief introduct ion of the case to the jury; it is read to the jury during voir dire and is included in the Court's preliminary instructions. It needs to inform the jury who the parties are and what the case is about. It is the Court's practice to require the parties to agree to a joint issue instruction; it is not acceptable for each side to propose one. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/18/2017. (JDC)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 18, 2019

Filing 124 ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S 115 MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - For the reasons explained above, Benner's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Filing No. 115 ), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court finds the proffered expert testimony as limited by this Entry, is relevant under Rule 401 and will not be unduly prejudicial or confusing under Rule 403. The Court limits the testimony of Rainsberger's police practices experts to describing sound professional standar ds and opining as to how Benner strayed from those standards during his investigation. The experts are not be permitted to give conclusions of law, opine on an ultimate issue, or judge the credibility of witnesses. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 11/18/2019. (NAD)

July 18, 2017

Filing 73 ORDER denying 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. This cause remains set for trial on September 11, 2017. The final pretrial conference will be held on August 10, 2017. The parties are reminded of their pretrial filing obligations set forth in secti on VIII of the case management plan Dkt. No. 12 . In addition, the parties shall confer and file a joint issue instruction at least one week prior to the final pretrial conference. The issue instruction serves as the Court's brief introduct ion of the case to the jury; it is read to the jury during voir dire and is included in the Court's preliminary instructions. It needs to inform the jury who the parties are and what the case is about. It is the Court's practice to require the parties to agree to a joint issue instruction; it is not acceptable for each side to propose one. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/18/2017. (JDC)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: RAINSBERGER v. BENNER
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CHARLES BENNER
Represented By:	Benjamin J. Church
Represented By:	Lynne Denise Hammer
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: WILLIAM RAINSBERGER
Represented By:	Richard A. Waples
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?