Dovel v. Walker Manufacturing

174 F.R.D. 651, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21352, 1996 WL 910029
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Dovel v. Walker Manufacturing. Read the opinion of the Court — 174 F.R.D. 649
District Court, D. Nebraska·Decided November 20, 1996·No. No. 4:CV95-3172·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KOPF, District Judge.

Pending before the court is Defendant Walker Manufacturing’s motion in limine (filing 85) filed in the alternative to Defendant’s Statement of Appeal of Magistrate Judge Piester’s Order of October 18,1996,1996 WL 910027, (see filings 74 and 82). While I have denied Defendant’s appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s order of October 18, 1996, I find Defendant’s motion in limine (filing 85) should be granted and find that no party shall refer to the fact that Dr. Wolcott was previously retained by Defendants.

IT IS ORDERED Defendant Walker Manufacturing’s motion in limine (filing 85) is granted.

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

Dovel v. Walker Manufacturing, 174 F.R.D. 651, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21352, 1996 WL 910029 (D. Neb. 1996).

174 F.R.D. 651 (Dovel v. Walker Manufacturing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dovel v. Walker Manufacturing
174 F.R.D. 649 (D. Nebraska, 1996)