Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

D. Kansas

Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau

530 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3386, 2008 WL 151239

CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

Docket05-2339-JWL

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 530 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 530 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3386, 2008 WL 151239 (D. Kan. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*1200 ORDER VACATING IN PART MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF OCTOBER 3, 2007

JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.

The Court’s Memorandum and Order of October 3, 2007 (Doc. # 189), Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 513 F.Supp.2d 1200 (D.Kan.2007), is hereby vacated in part. Specifically, the Court vacates that portion of the third paragraph of Part IV of the Memorandum and Order in which the Court discussed and applied the concurrent cause doctrine, see id., slip. op. at 8-9, 513 F.Supp.2d at 1205-06, in light of the Court’s application of an efficient proximate cause standard in jury instructions in this case. The denial of Wausau’s motion for summary judgment in Part IV of the Memorandum and Order remains unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1200 ORDER VACATING IN PART MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF OCTOBER 3, 2007

JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.

The Court’s Memorandum and Order of October 3, 2007 (Doc. # 189), Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 513 F.Supp.2d 1200 (D.Kan.2007), is hereby vacated in part. Specifically, the Court vacates that portion of the third paragraph of Part IV of the Memorandum and Order in which the Court discussed and applied the concurrent cause doctrine, see id., slip. op. at 8-9, 513 F.Supp.2d at 1205-06, in light of the Court’s application of an efficient proximate cause standard in jury instructions in this case. The denial of Wausau’s motion for summary judgment in Part IV of the Memorandum and Order remains unchanged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3386, 2008 WL 151239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ash-grove-cement-co-v-employers-ins-of-wausau-ksd-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack