Kannaday et al v. Ball
| Rachel Kannaday |
| Charles Ball |
| Geico Indemnity Insurance Company |
| 2:2009cv02255 |
| May 12, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Kansas City Office |
| Johnson |
| John W. Lungstrum |
| James P. O'Hara |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| None |
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
114
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 81 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 95 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 99 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 104 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 06/09/2010. (ses)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER granting 98 Renewed MOTION for Order Allowing Direct Communication. Copy of this order provided to Charles Ball by regular mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 3/19/2010. (ah) (Motion title modified on 3/19/2010. (mg))
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER denying 89 Motion for Order Allowing Direct Contact With Defendant Ball. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 2/25/2010. (ah) (Motion title modified on 2/26/2010. (mg))
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 21 plaintiff-garnishor's motion to compel and granting in part and denying in part 27 garnishee's motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/15/2009. (RA)
|
|
Filing
40
ORDER denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara on 9/11/2009. (ah)
|
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 Kansas 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.
