Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(A)

559 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 337 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.
  534 F.2d 566· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 334×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the date of discovery of the claims, precluding summary judgment. The wrongful death claim should also be permitted to be amended.
• Richard & Jane Bank v. Pitt
  928 F.2d 1108· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 156×
  A district court must grant a plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing it with prejudice, unless the plaintiff indicates no desire to amend or no amended complaint could state a claim.
• Watson v. Ault
  525 F.2d 886· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-12 ·cited 140×
  The court held that prisoner complaints, even if initially lacking factual detail, should not be dismissed as frivolous before being filed and docketed, and that a questionnaire can be used as a pleading auxiliary to develop facts.
• Paton v. la Prade
  524 F.2d 862· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-14 ·cited 139×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the FBI's maintenance of her file and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her damages claim, as factual issues remained regarding injury and the legality of the FBI's actions. The court also fou
• Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp.
  632 F.2d 539· 5th Cir.· 1980-12-10 ·cited 129×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, limiting discovery, or granting summary judgment.
• CAR Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. & Nu-Car Carriers, Inc.
  745 F.2d 1101· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because they did not allege anticompetitive effects, and that the district court did not err in denying leave to amend after dismissing the action.
• Wright v. Lanson Newsome
  795 F.2d 964· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the inmate's motion to amend his complaint and erred in dismissing his claims for procedural due process, access to the courts, and pendent state law claims.
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Wsb-Tv v. LEE
  842 F.2d 1266· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 102×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiffs had not had adequate opportunity for discovery and there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the sheriff's motivation and actions under color of state law.
• Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass'n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau
  701 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the assignments of antitrust claims were valid and that the health insurance contract and pharmacy benefit were exempt from antitrust laws under the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court also found no Robinson-Patman Act violation.
• Arlington Leon Brown v. Sgt. Chris Hughes
  894 F.2d 1533· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 100×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether a prison official was deliberately indifferent to an inmate's serious medical needs, and that a claim for destruction of property should have been allowed to proceed.
• The Chitimacha Tribe OF La. v. Harry L. Laws Co., Inc.
  690 F.2d 1157· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-05 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to disqualify Judge Davis, nor in granting summary judgment for the defendants on the title claim.
• Swan v. Bd. OF Higher Educ. OF the City OF NEW York by Gustave G. Rosenberg
  319 F.2d 56· 2d Cir.· 1963-06-04 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a nullity because it was filed after a judgment of dismissal had been entered, and the clerk's failure to formally enter the judgment did not alter this fact. The court also found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by t
• Lone Star Motor Imp., Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp.
  288 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1961-03-02 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint to allege sufficient facts showing the defendant's actual course of dealings within Texas.
• Coniston Corp. v. Vill. OF Hoffman Ests.
  844 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 77×
  The court held that a village board's rejection of a site plan, even without stated reasons, does not violate substantive or procedural due process if the decision is not irrational or invidious, and the action is legislative rather than adjudicative.
• The J. B. Williams Co., Inc. v. LE CONTÉ Cosmetics, Inc.
  523 F.2d 187· 9th Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 75×
  The court held that a likelihood of confusion existed between the trademarks 'Conti' and 'Le Conté' for cosmetic and hair care products, reversing the trial court's judgment. The court also suggested the trial court reconsider denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Salvadore Rotolo v. The Borough OF Charleroi
  532 F.2d 920· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-22 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing civil rights complaints without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, particularly regarding jurisdictional allegations and conclusory factual claims.
• Thomas v. Town OF Davie
  847 F.2d 771· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 69×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's § 1983 claim with prejudice without granting leave to amend the complaint.
• G. A. Thompson & Co., Inc. v. Partridge
  636 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 69×
  The court affirmed the judgment on the 10b-5 count but reversed the judgment on the misappropriation count, finding the plaintiff failed to show the corporation could not satisfy the debt.
• Bradshaw v. Zoological Soc'y OF SAN Diego
  662 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-07 ·cited 68×
  The court held that an order denying appointment of counsel in a Title VII case is not immediately appealable as a collateral order because it is effectively reviewable after final judgment and does not involve rights that would be destroyed by delaying review.
• Adams v. Russell
  739 F.2d 858· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 67×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint, as the proposed amendment stated a meritorious claim not barred by the statute of limitations or prior decisions.
• Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc.
  771 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and the assessment of Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions.
• Hensgens v. Deere & Co.
  833 F.2d 1179· 5th Cir.· 1987-12-17 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction after a nondiverse party was added, requiring remand to state court. The court also vacated the order allowing the amendment and remanded for reconsideration of whether joinder was appropriate.
• Gumer v. Shearson
  516 F.2d 283· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.
• Rudolph v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
  800 F.2d 1040· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the proposed amended complaint sufficiently stated a federal securities claim under Rule 10b-5, reversing the district court's dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
• Jamieson v. Shaw
  772 F.2d 1205· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-07 ·cited 56×
  The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the second amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore, further proceedings would be a waste of resources.
• Hilgeman v. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Am.
  547 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-18 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper service/venue, but was correct in dismissing claims against Empire and NICOA based on improper service under state law. The court also reversed the dismissal of
• Knorr Brake Corp. v. Harbil, Inc.
  738 F.2d 223· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 55×
  The court concurs with the majority opinion, acknowledging potential errors but upholding the policy of hesitating to assess attorney fees against attorneys.
• Usery v. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co.
  568 F.2d 902· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-29 ·cited 55×
  The Commission abused its discretion by refusing to allow the Secretary to amend the complaint to charge a violation of the general duty clause, as amendment would not prejudice the employer and justice required it.
• Adkins v. Int'l Union OF Elec.
  769 F.2d 330· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 54×
  Hybrid section 301/unfair representation claims are subject to a six-month statute of limitations, and claims accrue when the claimant discovers or should have discovered the acts constituting the violation, not necessarily when they exhaust nonjudicial remedies.
• Gordon v. Leeke
  574 F.2d 1147· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-06 ·cited 53×
  The court held that a district court is not required to act as an advocate for a pro se litigant, but should liberally construe pleadings and may advise the litigant.
• Ned Wedgeworth, Jr. v. Fibreboard Corp.
  706 F.2d 541· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-24 ·cited 51×
  The automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362 does not extend to co-defendants of a debtor in bankruptcy, and discretionary stays are not warranted when plaintiffs face significant hardship and proceedings are indefinite. Leave to amend to add liability insurers under the Louisiana Di
• Woodfork v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union
  642 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-17 ·cited 51×
  The majority reversed the district court's denial of leave to amend and remanded for a redetermination of the cause of action's accrual date, while the dissent argued the district court acted correctly in both respects.
• Jacobson v. Rose
  592 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-29 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint to seek actual damages, and that the award of statutory damages was properly joint and several. However, the court reversed and remanded regarding the good faith defense fo
• McLELLAN v. Miss. Power & Light Co.
  526 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1976-02-05 ·cited 50×
  The court held that a petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.
• Feddersen Motors, Inc. v. Ward
  180 F.2d 519· 10th Cir.· 1950-03-06 ·cited 50×
  A complaint alleging antitrust violations must plead specific facts showing harm to the public interest and undue restriction of interstate commerce, not just harm to the plaintiff.
• Luce v. Edelstein
  802 F.2d 49· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-26 ·cited 49×
  The court held that while some fraud allegations were insufficiently pleaded, others, particularly those concerning specific broken promises in the Offering Memorandum, stated a claim under Section 10(b). The court also found that dismissal without leave to amend was an abuse of
• Bireline v. Seagondollar
  567 F.2d 260· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-12 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to assert the statute of limitations and in granting summary judgment based on that statute.
• Jess F. Rhodes v. Amarillo Hosp. Dist.
  654 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the physician breached his employment contract by failing to obtain a medical license and refusing to perform his duties after obtaining it.
• United States Labor Party v. Oremus
  619 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their post-judgment motion to amend
• Ayala v. United States
  550 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1977-03-28 ·cited 48×
  The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its precedent rejecting pendent party jurisdiction, holding that an independent basis of federal jurisdiction is required for claims against additional parties under the FTCA. However, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of motions to ame
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Co.
  546 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 48×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that Koehring was liable to Hyde for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, affirming the trial court's finding with modifications to damages. The court reversed the lower court's finding that Koehring was not liable to Dunn, holding Koehring liable for abuse
• Coventry v. United States Steel Corp. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n
  856 F.2d 514· 3d Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in finding that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his ADEA claims.
• Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO
  724 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-16 ·cited 47×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a final order if the court's order does not explicitly state that no amendment is possible, and thus the appeal of the denial of leave to amend is timely. The court also hel
• Johnson v. Trueblood
  629 F.2d 287· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-31 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings to include claims arising from the foreclosure of the shopping center, and that the jury instruction regarding the business judgment rule was also erroneous under Delaware law.
• Barbara Hildebrand and husband v. Honeywell, Inc.
  622 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to specifically plead jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute, as the facts alleged supported jurisdiction and the delay was not attributable to willful misconduct by the plaintiffs.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. White & SON Enters.
  881 F.2d 1006· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendant willfully discriminated based on sex and retaliated against employees for protesting unequal pay, but vacated the damages award for recalculation.
• Textor v. Bd. OF Regents OF N. Ill. Univ.
  711 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and that the attorneys were denied a fair hearing on the award of attorney's fees.
• Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal
  165 F.2d 815· 1st Cir.· 1948-01-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a complaint alleging a fraudulent scheme to strip a company of assets, thereby disabling it from paying creditors, states a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, even if the specific misrepresentations are barred by the Statute of Frauds.
• Jervis B. Webb Co. v. S. Sys., Inc.
  742 F.2d 1388· Fed. Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 45×
  The court held that claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 11 of the patent were invalid for obviousness, but vacated the district court's invalidity finding for claims 2, 5-7, 10, and 12 due to a lack of case or controversy.