Edington et al v. Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Kentucky Eastern District Edington et al v. Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.

Edington et al v. Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Amelia Edington
Defendant:	Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
Case Number:	0:2008cv00069
Filed:	May 6, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Marine Office
County:	Lewis
Presiding Judge:	Henry R. Wilhoit
Nature of Suit:	Plaintiff
Cause of Action:	Diversity
Jury Demanded By:	28:1333 Admiralty

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
October 5, 2010	Filing 212 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; because the action of the Decedent were the sole cause of the tragic accident that occurred on 5/26/07 and plaintiffs' resulting damages, IT IS ORDERED pla shall take nothing and judgment as a matter of law be entered in favor of dft, a judgment shall be filed herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 10/5/10.(SMT)cc: COR
June 4, 2010	Filing 173 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 1) Brandy Bear's motion for partial s/j 112 is DENIED except to the extent that it seeks a pretrial ruling that the legal definition of "collision" encompasses the impact between the wake of a boat and an adjacent vessel 2) Edington plaintiffs motion for partial s/j 113 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; The motion is granted to the extent that pla seeks a pretrial ruling that dft violated Rule 34 by failing to sound a whistle while approaching the pleasure craft but is otherwise denied 3) dfts motion for partial s/j 124 is GRANTED to the extent that dfts liability in this action may not exceed $1.85 million dollars 4) the Edington pla motion for sanctions based upon spoliation of e lectronic data 115 is DENIED 5) Edington pla motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding the weight and credibility of witness testimony 117 is GRANTED to the extent that the experts must confine their testimony to the scope of knowledge and expertise 6) Edington pla motion in limine to prohibit economic testimony concerning the effect of income taxes 122 is GRANTED 7) Edington pla motion in limine to prohibit fact and expert witnesses from opining as to definition of "collision&q uot; 119 is granted 8) Edington pla motion in limine to preclude dft from relying upon a "custom" violative of statutory rules 120 is DENIED 9) Edington pla motion limine to prohibit intro of videotaped reconstruction of the incident 121 is GRANTED 10) Brandy Bear motion to strike dfts response in opposition to pla motion in limine 148 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 6/4/10.(SMT)cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

October 5, 2010

Filing 212 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER; because the action of the Decedent were the sole cause of the tragic accident that occurred on 5/26/07 and plaintiffs' resulting damages, IT IS ORDERED pla shall take nothing and judgment as a matter of law be entered in favor of dft, a judgment shall be filed herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 10/5/10.(SMT)cc: COR

June 4, 2010

Filing 173 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, 1) Brandy Bear's motion for partial s/j 112 is DENIED except to the extent that it seeks a pretrial ruling that the legal definition of "collision" encompasses the impact between the wake of a boat and an adjacent vessel 2) Edington plaintiffs motion for partial s/j 113 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; The motion is granted to the extent that pla seeks a pretrial ruling that dft violated Rule 34 by failing to sound a whistle while approaching the pleasure craft but is otherwise denied 3) dfts motion for partial s/j 124 is GRANTED to the extent that dfts liability in this action may not exceed $1.85 million dollars 4) the Edington pla motion for sanctions based upon spoliation of e lectronic data 115 is DENIED 5) Edington pla motion in limine to exclude testimony regarding the weight and credibility of witness testimony 117 is GRANTED to the extent that the experts must confine their testimony to the scope of knowledge and expertise 6) Edington pla motion in limine to prohibit economic testimony concerning the effect of income taxes 122 is GRANTED 7) Edington pla motion in limine to prohibit fact and expert witnesses from opining as to definition of "collision&q uot; 119 is granted 8) Edington pla motion in limine to preclude dft from relying upon a "custom" violative of statutory rules 120 is DENIED 9) Edington pla motion limine to prohibit intro of videotaped reconstruction of the incident 121 is GRANTED 10) Brandy Bear motion to strike dfts response in opposition to pla motion in limine 148 is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 6/4/10.(SMT)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Edington et al v. Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Amelia Edington
Represented By:	Robert Matthew Vital
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 ]
Defendant: Madison Coal & Supply Company, Inc.
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?