WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. S.C. NESTEL, INC. et al
| WAL-MART STORES, INC. |
| S.C. NESTEL, INC. and OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
| S.C. NESTEL, INC. and OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY |
| WAL-MART STORES, INC. |
| 1:2007cv00470 |
| April 17, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| David Frank Hamilton |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship) |
| Defendant |
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
140
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER - The Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 6/2/2010.(TRG)
|
|
Filing
128
ORDER on Pretrial Motions - Wal-Mart Motion in Limine (Dkt. No. 104 ) with respect to consequential damages is GRANTED. Wal-Mart's Motion to Exclude (Dkt. No. 96 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 3/23/2010. (TRG)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER grants in part and denies in part 42 Wal-Mart's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Wal-Mart's motion is granted as to S.C. Nestel's wrongful termination and breach of duty of good faith counterclaims and denied with respect to its own breach of contract claim, its claim for defense and indemnification, and S.C. Nestel's counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Order denies 45 S.C. Nestel's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David Frank Hamilton on 3/30/2009. (LBK)
|
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 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.
