GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT(S)c.ymcdn.com/sites/ Motion in Limine.doc NO. _____ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT(S) TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT:

Yanes/Pleadings/General Motion in Limine.doc

NO. _________

PLAINTIFF§§

DEFENDANT

GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT(S)

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT:

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166, 190.3(b)(1), 190.4(b)(2), 192.5, 193.2,

193.3, 193.4, 193.5 and 193.6, and to Texas Rules of Evidence 103(c), 104(a), 104(c), 105, 403

and 611, before jury selection proceedings begin we move the court, in limine, to order that the

other party or parties, their attorneys of record, and their witnesses, shall not make any requests

or statements, ask any questions, or testify or offer other evidence about any of these matters,

until after the party has made the request or statement, asked the question, or made an offer of

proof outside of the hearing or presence of the jury and obtained an order from the court

permitting the request or statement, or question, or admitting evidence, relating to these matters:

RULINGS:

__________1. DISCRIMINATION, FINANCIAL STATUS AND COMPARISON OF

FINANCIAL STATUS OF PARTIES: Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington Northern

R.R. Co., 966 S.W.2d 467, 471 (Tex. 1998); Eckman vs. Centennial Savings Bank, 784 S.W.2d

672 (Tex. 1990); Walgreen-Texas Co. v. Shivers, 137 Tex. 493, 154 S.W.2d 625,631-632 (1941);

Texas Co. v. Gibson, 131 Tex. 598, 116 S.W.2d 686, 687 (1938); Texas & N.O. R.R. Co. v.

Lide, 117 S.W. 2d 479, 480 (Tex. Civ. App. - Waco 1938, no writ); see also Uniroyal Goodrich

Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W. 2d 328, 342 (Tex. 1998)(recognizing that evidence of defendant's

net worth, by highlighting the relative wealth of a defendant, has a very real potential for

prejudicing the jury's determination of disputed issues in a tort case); but cf. Owens-Corning

Yanes/Pleadings/General Motion in Limine.doc 2

Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex. 1998) (recognizing that defendant's ability

to pay and financial condition are relevant to issue of amount of punitive damages in gross

negligence suit); Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 29-30 (Tex. 1994) (holding

that "evidence of a defendant's net worth is generally relevant only to the amount of punitive

damages"); Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital, 747 S.W.2d 361, 366 (Tex. 1987)

(holding that financial ability may be relevant to the question of whether the defendant has the

ability to take action)(Note: defendant(s) has not claimed that it did not have such ability and

thus has not raised this question). See generally Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code

Annotated § 41.001 (Vernon 1984); Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403.

__________2. LIABILITY INSURANCE: That defendant(s) are or are not insured against

liability, that attorneys were retained by an insurance company, that costs or any resulting

judgment will be or have been, or will not be or have not been, paid by an insurance company,

that defendant(s) will not have to pay or must pay any damages itself or themselves, or any other

matter suggesting an involvement or absence of involvement of any insurance company with the

suit. See Ford v. Carpenter, 216 S.W.2d 558, 559 (Tex. 1949); Rojas v. Vuocolo, 177 S.W.2d

962, 964 (Tex. 1944); Barrington v. Duncan, 169 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. 1943); Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure 192.3(f) and 226a.II.9, and Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 411; but cf.

General Motors Corp. v. Simmons, 558 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Tex. 1977) (Although one "may not

develop testimony that a party's loss was covered by insurance, as a general rule … interest, bias,

or motive on the part of a witness may be elicited on cross-examination even though it

incidentally discloses that the defendant is protected by insurance."). See generally Babcock vs.

Northwest Memorial Hospital, 767 S.W.2d 705, 708-709 (Tex. 1989). Parties may, however,

ask the jury panel about any connections with insurance companies (such as agency or


employment relationships) for the purpose of detecting bias or prejudice, Kollmorgan v. Scott,

447 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex. Civ. App--Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, no writ); or about their

thoughts on a "liability insurance crisis" or a "lawsuit crisis." Babcock vs. Northwest Memorial

Hospital, 767 S.W. 2d 705, 708-709 (Tex. 1989). Parties may also offer evidence of insurance

when offered for a purpose other than to prove that the insured person acted negligently or

otherwise wrongfully, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, if disputed, or bias or

prejudice of a witness. See Thornhill v. Ronnie's I-45 Truck Stop, 944 S.W.2d 780, 794 (Tex.

App.--Beaumont 1997, ________).

__________3. LIABILITY OR NON-LIABILITY FOR JUDGMENT: That the jury should

answer a question relating to damages regardless of who will or must pay the damages. See

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 226a. II.9, 226a. II (after para. 10) and 226a. III.4 and Texas

Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, and 411.

__________4. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR MEDIATION: Furnishing or offering

or promising to furnish, or accepting or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration

in compromising or attempting to compromise the claims in question; or evidence of conduct or

statements made in compromise negotiations; or evidence of the existence or contents of any

settlement agreement. Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex.

1987); General Motors Corp. v. Simmons, 558 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex. 1977); St. Paul Fire &

Marine Ins. Co. v. Murphree, 163 Tex. 534, 357 S.W.2d 744, 748 (1962); Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure 192.3(g); and Texas Rules of Evidence 408. This motion does not, however, apply to

any evidence relating to relevant injuries suffered by plaintiff(s) before or after the occurrences

or injuries in question. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Murphree, 163 Tex. 534, 357 S.W.2d


744, 747-748 (1962); see also Wright v. Excalibur Ins. Co., 486 S.W.2d 130, 133-135 (Tex. Civ.

App. -- Dallas 1972, no writ). Texas Rules of Evidence 408 does not require exclusion when the

evidence is offered for the purpose of proving bias or prejudice or interest of a witness or a party,

Ford Motor Co. v. Leggatt, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995), or for the purpose of proving

entitlement to credits for settlements, as set forth in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ann.

§§ 33.002(a), 33.003(3), 33.011(5), 33.012(b) or 33.014 (Vernon 1997); see Mobil Oil Corp. v.

Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917, 926-927 (Tex. 1998) ("[A] defendant seeking a settlement credit has

the burden of proving its right to such a credit. ... This burden involves proving the settlement

amount. A party can meet this burden by placing the settlement agreement or some evidence of

the settlement amount in the record."); First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74, 78-79

(Tex. 1993).

__________5. SETTLEMENT OF OTHER CASES: Settlement of another case. Birchfield v.

Texarkana Memorial Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987) ("Reference to settlement of

another case is generally not admissible."); see also Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone,

972 S.W.2d 35, 40-41 n.3 (Tex. 1998) (holding that in gross negligence-punitive damage suit the

defendant has the prerogative to offer evidence of paid settlement amount in other suits).

__________6. JUDGMENTS OR VERDICTS IN OTHER SUITS: Sysco Food Services, Inc.

v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801, 803 n.10, 804-805 (Tex. 1994) (holding that pleadings are

required to support such evidence; offensive assertion of collateral estoppel and evidence relating

to judgment in other suits may be unfair and violative of "open courts" clause, and right to jury

trial clause, and "due course" clause of the Texas Constitution); M'Camant v. Roberts, 66 Tex.

260, 1 S.W. 260, 261 (1886); see also Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d


35, 43 (Tex. 1998) ("[E]vidence of actual damages ... in other cases is inappropriate because

each case is fact specific and unrelated to the particular plaintiffs here."). See generally

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Share, 439 U.S. 322, 331, 99 S. Ct. 645, 651-652, 58 L.Ed. 2d 552

(1979) (fairness is required); Deviner v. Electrolux Motor, 844 F.2d 769, 774 (11th Cir. 1988).

This motion does not, however, seek the exclusion, during jury selection proceedings, of

questions to prospective jurors about earlier jury service, and about verdicts, including answers

to liability and damage questions. See Whiting v. State, 943 S.W. 2d 102, 104 (Tex. App. -

Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. refused) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in

overruling an objection to a question to a prospective juror regarding the verdict in a trial in

which the prospective juror served as a juror).

___________7. CROSSCLAIMS FOR INDEMNITY OR CONTRIBUTION: That one

defendant has requested indemnity by or contribution from another defendant or that

one defendant has indemnified or agreed to indemnify a co-defendant. See Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure 192.3(f) and Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, 403, 408 and

411.

___________8. DISCOVERY DISPUTES: The filing of any motion for protective order,

or the failure or refusal by this party to disclose or produce, or to timely disclose or

produce, any document or tangible thing in answer or response to a request for

discovery, the filing of a motion to compel, the occurrence of any discovery disputes,

and any rulings on such motions, responses or disputes. See Texas Rules of Evidence

103(c), 104(c), 401, 402, 403, 511, 512, and 513.


___________9. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULINGS ON

MOTIONS: Any reference to motions for summary judgment or rulings or failures to rule

on motions for summary judgment.

___________10. PLEADINGS IN RELATED CASE: Any references to or offer of the

pleadings by the plaintiffs in PLAINTIFF V. DEFENDANT, NO. _____ (DISTRICT

COURT OF _____ COUNTY, ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS, FILED ____).

__________ 11. CRIMINAL OFFENSES: Indictments of, accusations against and convictions

of any defendant or potential witnesses designated by any defendant, including Richard S.

Yanes, Jr. Texas Rules of Evidence 609(f). For purposes of this motion, defendant(s) request

that the proponent of any evidence of conviction give to the attorney in charge for defendant(s)

sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide defendant(s) with a

fair opportunity to contest the use of such evidence.

__________12. SUBSEQUENT REMEDIAL MEASURES: Measures taken by any defendant

after the events in question, which are offered for the purpose of proving negligence or culpable

conduct in connection with the event or occurrence in question. Texas Rules of Evidence 407(a);

cf. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W. 2d 328, 341(Tex. 1998) [928 S.W. 2d 64]

(holding that Texas Rules of Evidence 407(a) "does not apply in products liability cases based

on strict liability"). See generally Texas Rules of Evidence 105 (establishing that upon request

the court shall restrict evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly if evidence is

admissible for one purpose but not admissible for another purpose).


__________13. CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE: Claims of privilege which this party has made

before the trial or may make during the trial. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.4(b); and

Texas Rules of Evidence 507, 511 and 513.

_________14. REQUESTS FOR STIPULATION, ADMISSIONS OR FILES: Requests

during the trial by the other parties, or their representatives, witnesses or attorneys, for

production by this party or by our representatives or lawyer of any documents or tangible things,

or for any stipulations, admissions, denials or agreements by this party or by our representatives

or lawyer. See Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190.4(b)(2); 192.6; Texas Rules of Evidence

103(c), 104(c), 611, and 1004(4).

_________15. TESTIMONY ABOUT UNAVAILABLE DEPOSITION EXHIBITS:

Testimony about exhibits to depositions unless the exhibits are available for inspection in the

courtroom. Compare Imperial Casualty & Indem. Co. of Omaha v. Terry, 451 S.W.2d 303, 306

(Tex. Civ. App. -- Tyler 1970, no writ), with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 206.3. Pursuant to

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 206.3, this party has made a request at least seven days in

advance of the trial that the other parties produce the original deposition exhibits at this trial.

_________16. FAILURE TO CALL WITNESS: The failure by this party to call a witness and

argument that the testimony of any missing or absent witness can be presumed to be unfavorable

to the this party, unless and until the court has ruled or this party has admitted (a) that the witness

has personal knowledge of relevant facts, (b) that the witness is employed by or under the control

of this party, and (c) that the witness was available to testify by deposition or live at trial. See

Tex-Jersey Oil Co. v. Beck, 157 Tex. 541, 305 S.W.2d 162, 166-167 (1957); Bexar County


Appraisal Review Board vs. First Baptist Church, 846 S.W.2d 554 (Tex. App. - San Antonio

1993, no writ); John Deere & Co. v. May, 773 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. App. - Waco 1989, writ

denied); Texas Power & Light Co. v. Walker, 559 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tex. Civ. App. --

Texarkana 1977, no writ); see also Texas Rules of Evidence 103(c), 104(c), 402, 403 and 611.

_________17. VISUAL AIDS: Demonstrative evidence and other visual aids such as enlarged

illustrations, enlarged photographs, and videotapes, until after the adverse party has disclosed

them outside the presence of the jury. See Texas Rules of Civil Evidence 103(c), 104(c), 401,

402, 403, 611; 801(a); and 802. We acknowledge, of course, that charts, diagrams, time lines,

etc. "that summarize, or perhaps emphasize, testimony are admissible if the underlying

information has been admitted into evidence, or is subsequently admitted into evidence."

Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co v. Martinez, 977 S.W. 2d. 328, 341 (Tex. 1998).

_________18. REARRANGED VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITIONS: Videotapes of depositions

which have changed or rearranged the order of the witness' testimony, unless a written offer of

proof has been timely served which establishes the order of proof by page and line numbers for

start and stop points. See Texas Rules of Evidence 611. See generally Jones v. Colley, 820

S.W.2d 863, 864-868 (Tex. App. -- Texarkana 1991, writ denied) (Bleil and Grant, J.J.,

separately concurring) (relying on Texas Rules of Evidence 103, 106 and 403).

_________19. WRITING USED TO REFRESH MEMORY: Testimony about a matter by a

witness who has used a writing or record to refresh memory for the purpose of testifying until

after the court has determined whether the adverse parties are entitled (a) to have the writing or

record produced at the hearing or trial, and (b) to inspect it, and (c) to cross-examine the witness


thereon, and (d) to introduce into evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the

witness. See Texas Rules of Evidence 612, 803(5), 1001, 1002, 1003 and 1006.

_________20. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES: Testimony on scientific, technical,

or other specialized knowledge until the court has determined (out of the hearing of the jury so as

to prevent any improper comment on the weight of the evidence) that

(a) as requested in discovery requests, the expert witness has been

timely identified, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Morua, 979

S.W. 2d 616, 620 n.11 (Tex. 1998) (recognizing that rules impose a

duty to supplement responses to written discovery, but that the

adverse party must object to testimony by the late identified witness);

Sharp v. Broadway Nat. Bank, 784 S.W. 2d 669 (Tex. 1990) (per

curiam); Clark v. Trailways, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 644, 647 (Tex. 1989);

and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.5 (providing for duty to

supplement or amend written discovery); 193.6; 194.2(f); 195.6; and

215.2(b)(4);

(b) as requested in discovery requests, the requested information

about opinions and supporting data has been timely disclosed, Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure 193.5, 193.6; 194.2(f); 195.6; and

215.2(b)(4); see also Titus County Hospital Dist. v. Lucus, 988 S.W.

2d 740 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam) (regarding duty to supplement expert

witness deposition testimony); and


(c) by education, training or experience the expert witness is qualified

as an expert and has the required expertise, knowledge or skill in

regard to the specific field, area or subject in question, Gammill v.

Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc., 972 S.W. 2d 713, 718 (Tex. 1998)

(ARule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence permits a witness

qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or

education to testify on scientific, technical, or other specialized

subjects if the testimony would assist the trier of fact in understanding

the evidence or determining a fact in issue. Whether an expert is

qualified is, under rule 104(a), a preliminary question to be decided

upon by the trial court. [T]he party offering the expert=s testimony

bears the burden to prove that the witness is qualified under [Rule]

702. The offering party must demonstrate that the witness possess[es]

special knowledge as to the very matter on which he proposes to give

an opinion.@) (Internal quotation marks omitted); and

(d) the testimony or other evidence is sufficiently reliable and

relevant to assist or help the jury to understood the evidence or

determine a fact in issue, K-mart Corp. v. Honeycutt, 24 S.W.3d 357,

360-361 (Tex. 2000) (holding that expert testimony would not have

assisted the trier of fact); GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d

605, 619-620 (Tex. 1999)(holding that subject of expert testimony

was not specialized knowledge); Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet,

Inc., 972 S.W. 2d 713, 726 (Tex. 1998)("Rule 702's fundamental


requirements of reliability and relevance are applicable to all expert

testimony offered under that rule"); see also Maritime Overseas Corp.

v. Ellis, 971 S.W. 2d 402, 409 (Tex. 1998) (requiring objection at or

before trial to testimony by expert witness which is not relevant or

reliable); United Blood Services v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29, 30-31

(Tex. 1997) (per curiam); State v. Sunland Supply, 404 S.W.2d 316,

318 (Tex. 1996) (holding that trial court has discretion to permit voir

dire examination of an expert witness outside of the presence of the

jury); Texas Rules of Evidence 103(c), 104(a), 104(c), 602, 611(a),

612, 702, 703, 704, 705(b), 803(5) and 1006. In accordance with

Texas Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 705(b), the plaintiff(s) requests

permission to conduct, before the witness gives opinions or discloses

the underlying facts or data, a voir dire examination directed to the

qualifications of the witness and the underlying facts or data upon

which the opinion is based and requests that the examination be

conducted out of the hearing of the jury.

_________21. TESTIMONY BY EXPERT WITNESSES ABOUT INADMISSIBLE

SUPPORTING DATA: Data or information supporting an opinion if the data is not admissible in

evidence. Compare Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem. Hosp., 747 S.W.2d 361, 365 (Tex. 1987),

with Beavers v. Northrop Worldwide Aircraft Services, 821 S.W.2d 669, 673-675 (Tex. App. --

Amarillo 1991, writ denied); First Southwest Lloyds Ins. Co. v. MacDowell, 769 S.W.2d 954,

957-958 (Tex. App. --Texarkana 1989, writ denied); Souris v. Robinson, 725 S.W.2d 339, 341

(Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, no writ), and Texas Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 703.


_________22. INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION: That the plaintiff(s) are

willing to be examined by a physician at the request of any of the defendant(s) or that the

defendant(s) have a right to request an examination, or move for an order requiring an

examination, of the plaintiff(s) by a physician, or that the defendant(s) have failed to make such a

request. Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 167a(c); see also Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402,

and 403. This motion is, however, subject to any right to a courtroom examination. See Texas

Employers Ins. Ass'n. v. Hatton, 152 Tex. 199, 255 S.W.2d 848, 849-850, 851 (1953); Houston

& T.C.R. Co. v. Anglin, 99 Tex. 349, 89 S.W. 966, 967 (1905).

_________23. HEARSAY MEDICAL OPINIONS: Any hearsay statement by an allegedly

injured person offered for the purpose of proving the truth of the declaration concerning any

diagnosis or medical opinions by a physician or other health care provider. Texas Rules of

Evidence 802.

_________24. EFFECT OF ANSWERS TO JURY QUESTIONS: The effect of the answer by

the jury to any question in the charge of the court to the jury (such as argument that the

plaintiff(s) will not recover any damages if the jury answers "no" to the liability questions). See

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 226.III.4; Texas Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403; cf. Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure 277 [voir dire?]; see also Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v. Mendenhall, 334

S.W.2d 850, 853-854 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort Worth 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.). This motion does

not, however, seek the exclusion of argument that the jury should give a particular answer to a

question submitted in the charge of the court to the jury.


_________25. GOLDEN RULE: Argument that jurors should put themselves in the place of

the plaintiff(s), or an argument to follow the "Golden Rule." Southwestern Greyhound Lines,

Inc. v. Dickson, 149 Tex. 599, 236 S.W.2d 115, 119 (1951).

_________26. CONTRADICTIONS OF ADMISSIONS: Evidence which contradicts an

admission of facts made by the adverse parties in live trial pleadings, in deposition testimony, in

motions, in responses to motions, or in response to any requests for admissions filed with the

record. Marshall v. Vise, 767 S.W.2d 699, 700 (Tex. 1989); see also Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n v.

Hatton, 152 Tex. 199, 255 S.W.2d 848 (1953).

_________27. QUOTATIONS FROM OPINIONS: Quotations from opinions by courts or

judges which are attributed to the court or judge because such would in effect be a direct

comment on the weight of the evidence and would deny the defendant(s) the right to a jury trial

and the right to "due course" of law under the Texas Constitution. See Texas State Board of

Registration for Professional Engineers v. Dalton, Hinds & O'Brien Eng. Co., 382 S.W.2d 130,

135-136 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Corpus Christi 1964, no writ). See generally Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure 277.

_________28. DIRECT OR INDIRECT REFERENCE BY COURT TO WITNESS AS

"EXPERT:" Requests that the court inform the jury that a witness is an "expert" or that the

court acknowledge that a witness is an expert because any indication by the court would be an

impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence. Hon. Charles Richey, Proposals to

Eliminate the Prejudicial Effect of the Use of the Word "Expert" Under the Federal Rules of

Evidence in Criminal and Civil Jury Trials, 154 F. R .D. 537, 559 (1994); Fed. R. Ev. 702


Advisory Committee Notes (relying on Richey)

________29. REQUEST FOR OR IDENTITY OF JURY QUESTION: Any reference to

jury questions submitted to the jury as "plaintiff's questions" or "defendant's questions," or

similar references.

________30. IMPLICATIONS FROM SUBMISSION OF JURY QUESTIONS: Any

implications or statements that indicate the trial judge or court considers a question submitted to

the jury to be a question of fact, raised by the pleadings or evidence.

________31. IMPLICATIONS OF DUTY OWED BY THIS PARTY: Any implications or

statements that indicate the trial judge or court has ruled, decided or concluded that this party has

a duty (to indemnify) or has any other duty under the statute or common law in question.

________32. ANY MOTIONS FOR INSTRUCTED VERDICT AND RULINGS ON

MOTIONS: Any reference to motions for instructed verdict or failures to move for instructed

verdict, or rulings or failures to rule on motions for instructed verdict.

_________33. THIS MOTION: The making of this motion. Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364

S.W.2d 766, 769-770 (Tex. Civ. App. -- San Antonio 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Texas Employers

Ins. Ass'n v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Eastland 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

_________34. THE CONTENTS OF THIS MOTION: Burdick v. York Oil Co., 364 S.W.2d

766, 769-770 (Tex. Civ. App. -- San Antonio 1968, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n


v. Phillips, 255 S.W.2d 364 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Eastland 1953, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Respectfully submitted:

________________________ATTORNEY AT LAWADDRESSTELEPHONE NUMBERTELEFAX NUMBEREMAIL ADDRESSSTATE BAR NUMBER

ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT

AUTHORITY

State v. Wood Oil Dist., Co., 751 S.W.2d 863, 865-866 (Tex. 1988); Pool v. Ford MotorCo., 715 S.W.2d 629, 637 (Tex. 1986) (requiring an objection to preserve error for appellatereview); Acord v. G.M. Corp., 669 S.W.2d 111, 116 (Tex. 1984); Hartford Accident andIndemnity Co. v. McCardell, 369 S.W.2d 331, 335 (Tex. 1963); Bridges v. City of Richardson,163 Tex. 292, 354 S.W.2d 366, 367-368 (1962); Ford v. Carpenter, 147 Tex. 447, 214 S.W.2d558 (1949). See generally A.W. Ellis, The Motion in Limine, Texas Bar Journal (Feb. 1980), at141-147.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify to the Court that I have complied with the provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P. 21, and Istate that, pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a, I timely served this paper by delivering a copy of it inperson to the attorney in charge for each other party.

______________________________ATTORNEY AT LAW







Documents

GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT(S)c.ymcdn.com/sites/ Motion in Limine.doc NO. _____ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTION IN LIMINE BY DEFENDANT(S) TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT: