Wallis v. Townsend Vision Inc et al
| 3:2006cv03227 |
| October 5, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| Springfield Office |
| Charles H. Evans |
| Richard Mills |
| Personal Inj. Prod. Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
110
OPINION. The Defendant's motion in limine [d/e 91] is DENIED. The Defendant's motion to amend/correct its answer to state an additional affirmative defense [d/e 96] is DENIED. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 9/9/2009. (CC, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
97
OPINION. The Plaintiff's motion in limine in regard to the conduct of Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation or any of its employees or agents, wherein she seeks to exclude any evidence that her employer or its officials were a cause of her injurie s, [d/e 67] is DENIED. The Plaintiff's motion in limine barring any mention of her worker's compensation case against Cargill Meat Solutions [d/e 69] is ALLOWED, as provided in this Order. The Plaintiff's motion in limine seeking to exclude Dr. Wayne Stillings's testimony and tests and that any psychological treatment was paid for by worker's compensation insurance [d/e 71] is ALLOWED, as provided in this Order. The Plaintiff's motion in limine in regard to the t estimony of Townsend witnesses and J. Dan McCausland which pertains to McCausland's opinion that injuries using skinning machines occur less than once per 4.7 million operations [d/e 73] is ALLOWED, unless Townsend first establishes the necessar y foundation, as provided in this Order. To the extent that the Plaintiff seeks to exclude McCausland's other opinions, the motion is DENIED. The Plaintiff's motion in limine barring any and all testimony, inferences or argument that Plai ntiff is not married to the father of their three children [d/e 75] is DENIED. However, any such testimony or evidence shall be limited as provided in this Order. The Plaintiff's motion in limine barring any mention of her sexual harassment la wsuit against Cargill Meat Solutions [d/e 77] is DENIED, to the extent provided in this Order. The Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the Plaintiff's motion in limine barring the introduction of the Defendant's exemplar of the Townsend 7600 Ski nning Machine or any photos thereof [d/e 79]. The Plaintiff's motion in limine barring any mention of a jury verdict in the case of Perez v. Townsend from the Middle District of Pennsylvania [d/e 81] is ALLOWED, to the the extent provided in this Order. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply brief [d/e 94] is ALLOWED. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 8/13/2009. (CC, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
90
OPINION. The Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Defendant's second affirmative defense, that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Illinois Statute of Repose, [d/e 39] is ALLOWED. The Plaintiff's motion for pa rtial summary judgment on the Defendant's third affirmative defense, that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, [d/e 40] is ALLOWED. The Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Defendant's fourth affirmative defense, assumption of risk, [d/e 41] is ALLOWED, to the extent provided in this Order. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 7/10/2009. (CC, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
65
OPINION. The Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits A and C filed in the Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of assumption of risk [d/e 58] is DENIED. The Plaintiff's motion to strike as t o exhibits filed with the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on failure to mitigate damages [d/e 59] is DENIED in PART and GRANTED in PART. It is DENIED as to Exhibit A and GRANTED as to Exhibits B, C and D. The Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibits A, B and C of the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of statute of repose [d/e 60] is DENIED. The Plaintiff's motion for a n Order of Protection and to bar testimony of the Defendant's retained expert and to strike Exhibits B, C and D of the Defendant's reply to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the failure to mitigate damages affirmative defense [d/e 49] is DENIED AS MOOT. Entered by Judge Richard Mills on 1/30/2009. (CC, ilcd)
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Wallis v. Townsend Vision Inc et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
