Legal Opinion
Kociemba v. G. D. Searle & Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided February 11, 1988No. Civ. 3-85-1599PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RENNER, District Judge.
Before the Court is defendant’s motion in limine, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403 and 407, to exclude evidence of 1) subsequent remedial measures; 2) potential adverse reactions to Cu-7 use other than those associated with infection; 3) post-1977 conduct; and 4) conduct irrelevant to punitive damages. On October 23, 1987, the Court held a hearing on the matter and took it under advisement.
Defendant, by the instant motion, seeks a blanket exclusion for evidence fitting into one of four general categories. This Court refuses to grant such a blanket…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Martha Ann Brundage Rozier v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Richard GAUTHIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMF, INC., Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- In Re Richardson-Merrell, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1985
- DeLuryea v. Winthrop LaboratoriesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
- Richard Gauthier v. Amf, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. RandallNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. RandallNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2002