Legal Opinion

Roniger v. McCall

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 23, 2000No. 97 Civ. 8009(RWS)PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SWEET, District Judge.

Defendants H. Carl McCall (“McCall”) and Rosemary Scanlon (“Scanlon”) (collectively, “the Defendants”) move for an order excluding the admission of certain of plaintiff George P. Roniger’s (“Roniger”) newspaper article exhibits, pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402 and 403. Roniger opposes the motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

Parties, Facts and Prior Proceedings

The parties, facts, and prior proceedings in this action are set forth in greater detail in the prior opinions of this Court,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. Mija S. Romer, United States of America v. Khem C. BatraCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1998
  2. Roniger v. McCallDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
  3. Yarborough v. City of WarrenDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1974
  4. Roniger v. McCallDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jackson v. JiminoDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2007
  2. Rivera v. Incorporated Village of FarmingdaleDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API