Weigle v. Pifer et al
| James P. Weigle |
| R. L. Pifer, Brian Ingraham, City of Vienna Police Department and City of Vienna |
| 2:2014cv15087 |
| April 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Wood |
| John T. Copenhaver |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
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
75
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 MOTION by City of Vienna, City of Vienna Police Department, Brian Ingraham, R. L. Pifer for Summary Judgment as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 10/14/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
|
|
Filing
39
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 MOTION to Exclude Opinions of Plaintiff's Expert William T. Gaut Ph.D. and in the Alternative MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Incorporat ed Memorandum of Law; the court reserves the right to rule on the admissibility of specific opinions when offered at trial, and to exclude or strike any testimony that contains inadmissible legal conclusions, or questions that invite such testimony; granting as to 22 MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/30/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
