No. 18-6245
Johnny Kirkland v. Progressive Insurance Company, et al.
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights directed-verdict due-process evidence motion-to-dismiss right-to-counsel standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-03-15
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) Whether Raymond Luker was negligent.
(2) Whether it was a refusal at trial to accept proffered admissible evidence, not the granting of the motion in Limine, that serves as the basis for reversible error. It was also prejudicial, and causing me not to have a fair trial.
(3) Whether my Civil Rights were violated.
(4) Whether there was a Right to counsel.
(5) Whether there was a Due Process Violation in that the court denied the defendant Motion for Direct verdict, when my admissible evidence was already barred by a Motion in Limine when there was a genuine issue of fact to be presented to the jury.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Raymond Lofer vs Wonton, and Negligence
Docket Entries
2019-03-18
Rehearing DENIED.
2019-02-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/15/2019.
2019-01-16
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2019-01-07
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-08
Waiver of right of respondent Progressive Ins. Co. to respond filed.
2018-11-07
Waiver of right of respondents Raymond Luker and Progressive Ins. Co. to respond filed.
2018-09-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 8, 2018)
Attorneys
Johnny Kirkland
Johnny Kirkland — Petitioner
Progressive Ins. Co.
Raymond Luker and Progressive Ins. Co.
Aaron Wiley — Carr Allison, Respondent