Edington v. Sammons et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 44 Motion in Limine; granting 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , and 51 Motions in Limine. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 7/8/2014. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION PATRICIA JANE EDINGTON VS. PLAINTIFF 3:13-CV-00202-BRW ALEXANDRA JANE EDINGTON SAMMONS and NATHAN SAMMONS DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Testamentary Intentions of Jerry Edington (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED, so long as the testimony complies with the hearsay exception established by Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (1892) and Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). 2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Reasonable Rental Value of Jackson County Farmland (Doc. No. 45) -- It seems to me that the value of the farmland is irrelevant. It apparently is undisputed that the rental income from the farm is $18,000 a year. The motion is GRANTED. 3. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony or Allusion by Counsel Challenging the Validity of the August 2008 Conveyances (Doc. No. 46) is GRANTED to the extent that it concerns whether Defendants’ have proper title to the land. 4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Parties’ Income (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED. 5. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Recent Negotiations for Sale of Jackson County Farmland (Doc. No. 48) is GRANTED. 6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Source of Jackson County Farmland and Funds to Purchase (Doc. No. 49) is GRANTED. 1 7. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Lay Testimony as to Health and Life Expectancy of Plaintiff (Doc. No. 50) is GRANTED. 8. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Jerry Edington’s Alleged Financial Misdealings (Doc. No. 51) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2014. /s/ Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?