Blume v. Meneley
District Court, D. Kansas
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MURGUIA District Judge.
Pending before the court is plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate (Doc. 143) that part of the court’s June 25, 2003 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 139) (the “Order”) that dismissed plaintiffs’ defamation claims. In the Order, the court found that plaintiffs had not adequately preserved their defamation claims in the Pretrial Order (Doc. 88). Plaintiffs argue that the defamation claims were preserved and ask the court to vacate its Order and reinstate those claims. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate is denied.
I. Background
This case…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Raymond J. Van Skiver Alma L. Van Skiver v. United States of America and John DoesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- George Rakovich v. Gregory Wade and Darryl Drake, George Rakovich v. Chester KassCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Douglass v. Garden City Community CollegeDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2023
- Taylor v. James ThomasDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2019