In limine motions are offered at the threshold of a trial to obtain a ruling on the admissibility of specific evidence. The analysis offered thus far by Federal appellate courts regarding the impact of court decisions in ruling on in limine motions could be improved if the courts would separate five concepts: prematurity, deviousness, predictability, harmless error, and irrelevant error. Prematurity relates to a general problem with in limine rulings, i.e., whether the trial judge has sufficient information to make an informed decision on an in limine motion. The second concept, deviousness, derives from the possibility that one party may successfully seek an in limine ruling and them attempt to take unfair advantage of it. Regarding predictability, a judge who refuses to rule in limine increases the uncertainty of the parties over evidence disputes. Once the pretrial ruling is made, however, predictability is achieved no matter how the question about appellate review is resolved. The final two concepts -- harmless error and irrelevant error -- are the ones that should be central in deciding when appellate review is appropriate for in limine court decisions. The most powerful argument in favor of appellate review in the 'Portash' and 'Cook' cases is that a defendant who is hurt by an erroneous evidence ruling should be encouraged to pursue the litigation strategy that is most likely to be effective. By doing so, he increases the likelihood that the error will become irrelevant when he emerges victorious.