Jones v. Beelman Truck Company

Plaintiff: Raymond K. Jones
Defendant: Beelman Truck Company
Case Number: 4:2013cv00252
Filed: February 8, 2013
Court: Missouri Eastern District Court
Office: St. Louis Office
County: St. Francois
Presiding Judge: Charles A. Shaw
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
July 28, 2015 74 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to respond out of time to defendants motion to determine the value of medical treatment is GRANTED. [Doc. 66] The Clerk of Court shall detach and docket plaintiffs respons e, which was submitted as an attachment to its motion for leave. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Beelman Truck Company's motion to determine the value of medical treatment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Doc. 46] The moti on is GRANTED to the extent it seeks a determination that the statutory presumption set forth in Missouri Revised Statute § 490.715.5 applies in this case, and DENIED to the extent it seeks a ruling from the Court determining the exact dollar amount of the value plaintiffs medical treatment.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/28/2015. (MRC)
June 9, 2015 64 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Beelman Truck Companys motion to bar certain testimony of William Hampton under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, 702, and 704 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; [Doc. 44] the motion is: GRANTED to the extent defendant seeks to bar testimony regarding conclusion numbers 1, 6 and 9 of Mr. Hamptons expert report and to the extent defendant seeks to bar testimony regarding ambient lighting at the scene of the accident; and DENIED in all other respects.. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 6/9/2015. (MRC)
May 28, 2015 63 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Beelman Truck Company's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. [Doc. 41 ] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 5/28/15. (KXS)
September 17, 2014 36 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Beelman Truck Company's motion for an independent medical examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35 is GRANTED. [Doc. 34 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the medical exam ination shall be conducted by Dr. Marcie Garland on October 9, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the Washington University School of Medicine, Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri upon the conditions set forth in this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 9/17/14. (KXS)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jones v. Beelman Truck Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Raymond K. Jones
Represented By: David A. Nester
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Beelman Truck Company
Represented By: Christopher D. Baucom
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?