Defendant\u27s Motion for Summary Judgment

The State argues that even viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate of Sam Sheppard, the Estate cannot demonstrate that: (1) the court has subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the Estate has standing. The State argues in the alternative that this lawsuit is not time-barred by the statute of limitations and laches. In addition, the Estate has provided no significant probative evidence in support of its claim; it is instead repackaging evidence that has been available for decades and spinning the meaning of scientific data to fit its interest. This argument does not rise to a level sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the State is entitled to judgment as a matter of law since no genuine issue of material fact exists. The State\u27s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied on 01/24/00; see docke

Defendant\u27s Motion for Summary Judgment

The State argues that even viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the Estate of Sam Sheppard, the Estate cannot demonstrate that: (1) the court has subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the Estate has standing. The State argues in the alternative that this lawsuit is not time-barred by the statute of limitations and laches. In addition, the Estate has provided no significant probative evidence in support of its claim; it is instead repackaging evidence that has been available for decades and spinning the meaning of scientific data to fit its interest. This argument does not rise to a level sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, the State is entitled to judgment as a matter of law since no genuine issue of material fact exists. The State\u27s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied on 01/24/00; see docke