Repking v. McKennedy
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|May 22, 2014
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins: Defendant David McKennedy's Fourth Motion in Limine 51 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
|May 6, 2014
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint 52 is DENIED. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
|October 24, 2013
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Defendant's First Motion in Limine to Bar Evidence of the Defendant's Use of Drugs or Mental Condition at Trial 37 ALLOWED; Defendant's Third Motion in Limine 39 ALLOWED; Defendant's Second Motion in Limine 38 ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. See written order. (LB, ilcd)
|October 18, 2013
OPINION (See Written Opinion): Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 40 ) is ALLOWED, and Defendant's Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 42 ) is DENIED as moot. The Court enters partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff William T. Repking and against Defendant David A. McKennedy on the issues of McKennedy's negligence and whether McKennedy's negligence was the proximate cause of the injurious accident, as alleged in C ount I of the Complaint. The trial on Count I will be limited to damages in accordance with this Opinion. Telephone conference to discuss scheduling and to discuss a referral for Court-sponsored mediation set Wednesday, November 6, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. (Court will place call.) Entered by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore on 10182013. (VM, ilcd)
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 Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?