Legal Opinion
Wicker v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 24, 2005No. Civil Action No. 93-41J, Civil Action No. 94-4J, Civil Action No. 94-8J, Civil Action No. 94-16J, Civil Action No. 94-18J, Civil Action No. 94-20J, Civil Action No. 94-23J, Civil Action No. 94-26J, Civil Action No. 94-33J, ivil Action No. 94-53J, Civil Action No. 95-10J, Civil Action No. 95-31J, Civil Action No. 95-102J, Civil Action No. 95-105J, Civil Action No. 95-107J, Civil Action No. 95-212J, Civil Action No. 96-79J, Civil Action No. 96-80JPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
GIBSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion in Limine (Document No. 24 at C.A. No.l994-4J), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Conrail’s Motion in Limine (Document No. 119 at C.A.No. 1993 — 41J) and the Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Release (Document No. 32 at C.A. No.l994-23J). A general background discussion as to the history of these matters can be found under Section II. A. of this Memorandum. Before proceeding to determine the Motion in Limine, the Court will first review the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Conrail’s…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- United States v. John W. DowningCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pritchard v. Dow Agro SciencesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
- Bardo v. Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
- Brugler v. UNUM GroupDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019