Swift et al v BPI
| Russell J Swift and Bobbi Swift |
| BPI Eenergy Inc and BPI Energy Holdings Inc |
| 3:2008cv03189 |
| August 27, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of Illinois |
| P.I.: Other Office |
| Marion |
| Charles H. Evans |
| Jeanne E. Scott |
| Both |
| Diversity |
| 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury |
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
60
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 09/07/2011. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Third-Party Defendant Tri-S Excavating, L.L.C.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 46) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is GRANTED as to Third Party Plaintiff BPI's negligent hiring, supervision, and "prior low back" (a/k/a "pre-existing condition") claims. Summary judgment is DENIED as to BPI's claims for negligent training, education, and instruction. (DM, ilcd)
|
|
Filing
57
OPINION: Third Party Plaintiffs BPI ENERGY, Inc. and BPI Energy Holdings, Inc.'s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Third-Party Complaint (d/e 53) is DENIED. The parties are to bear their own costs and expenses related to this motion. Entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 3/28/11. (ME, ilcd) Modified document type to "Opinion" on 3/28/2011 (ME, ilcd).
|
|
Filing
30
OPINION entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 03/03/2009. Defendants' Motion to Strike (d/e 18) is DENIED. (DM, 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
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.
