Skip to main content

Williams v. Johnson

Citations

  • 747 F. Supp. 2d 10
  • 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115350
  • 2010 WL 4284558

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that \the deadline to file dispositive motions has long since passed\
  • noting that “the deadline to file dispositive motions has long since passed”
  • “Like Plaintiff, the District misconstrues the purpose of a motion in limine, which should not be used to resolve factual disputes among the parties.”
  • “In light of their limited purpose, motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes, which remains the function of a motion for summary judgment.”
  • “Simply put, [Defendant] has cloaked a motion for summary judgment in the form of a motion in limine, but the deadline to file dispositive motions has long since passed.”
  • “In light of their limited purpose [to narrow evidentiary issues at trial], motions in limine should not be used to resolve factual disputes . . . .” (internal quotation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Williams v. Johnson

89 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.