Aaron Browning v. David Hickman (Separate)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13-1116 – Aaron Browning v. David Hickman FILED June 10, 2015 Justice Ketchum, concurring: RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I totally agree with the excellent majority opinion. I write to emphasize that our recently amended Rules of Evidence not only discourage the use of motions in limine, but recognize that many of the motions that are filed are frivolous and a waste of judicial resources. The comment to Rule 103 of the new Rules of Evidence [2014] states: Motions in limine on legal issues presented in a vacuum are often frivolous. Boilerplate, generalized objections in motions in limine are inadequate and tantamount to not making any objection at all and will not preserve error. For example, a motion that simply asks the trial court to prohibit the adverse party from presenting hearsay evidence or mentioning insurance at trial is a waste of judicial resources. Generally, a motion in limine should not be filed (or granted) until the trial court has been given adequate context, and the evidence is sufficient to permit the trial court to make an informed ruling.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.