Schlueter v. Ingram Barge Company
| Bobby Schlueter |
| Ingram Barge Company |
| 3:2016cv02079 |
| August 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Aleta A. Trauger |
| Marine |
| 46 U.S.C. ยง 688 |
| 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
187
ORDER regarding trial testimony of Dr. Benjamin Johnson signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 12/9/2019. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)
|
|
Filing
88
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of Scott Giles, D.O. ( 83 ) is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/18/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
|
|
Filing
82
MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Exclude Dr. Benjamin Johnson's Opinions Regarding Diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and Certain Elements of Future Medical Treatment ( 43 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRA NTED to the extent that Dr. Johnson will not be allowed to testify that the plaintiff will need arthroscopic knee surgery in the future or about his future need for prescription medications that have in the past been prescribed by other practitioners for conditions unrelated to CRPS; it is DENIED in all other respects. Defendant's Motion to Exclude Jay Marsh's Opinions Regarding Past and Future Medical Expenses ( 45 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude Earl Darst from Offeri ng Certain Expert Testimony on Behalf of the Defendant ( 47 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of Todd Didion at Trial ( 52 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to Ex clude Defendant's Proposed Expert Witness Testimony of George A. Barrett at Trial ( 51 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 11/1/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
|
|
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM & ORDER. The defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Loss of Household Services ( 63 ) is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE the first Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ( 49 ) as superseded by the second. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 10/1/19. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(gb)
|
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 Tennessee Middle 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: Schlueter v. Ingram Barge Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bobby Schlueter | |
| Represented By: | Lee J. Bloomfield |
| Represented By: | Paul Mark Ledbetter |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Ingram Barge Company | |
| Represented By: | G. Ray Bratton |
| Represented By: | Elissa M. Mulrooney |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.
