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

• Farris O. Anderson v. Nat'l Producing Co.
  253 F.2d 834· 2d Cir.· 1958-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a partnership between Hamid and Morton, and that the admission of certain evidence was proper or harmless error.
• In re Hudson & Manhattan R.R. Co. v. Stichman
  229 F.2d 616· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-09 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court properly denied the debtor's petitions to employ an engineering firm to value its property and to withdraw its amended answer and file a new one, as the debtor had previously consented to reorganization and its subsequent attempts to contest
• Bryne v. United States
  218 F.2d 327· 1st Cir.· 1955-01-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the maximum price for the salvaged sulphur could not be determined from the record, and the validity and application of a retroactive price order were improperly handled.
• Moiger v. Johnson
  180 F.2d 777· D.C. Cir.· 1950-03-06 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the lessee's actions constituted a valid exercise of the lease extension, which carried forward the option to purchase, entitling the lessee to specific performance.
• Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Jones
  177 F.2d 166· 4th Cir.· 1949-10-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and the amendment to the complaint was properly allowed.
• Calhoun Cnty. v. Roberts
  148 F.2d 901· 5th Cir.· 1945-04-21 ·cited 4×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover a specific, calculated amount of bond funds remaining in the construction account, but not the full amount previously awarded.
• Olivera v. Badcock Econ. Furniture Inc.
  2008 WL 11408621· M.D. Fla.· 2020-01-07 ·cited 3×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion to substitute the proper defendant and transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• Arianas v. LVNV Funding LLC.
  262 F. Supp. 1· M.D. Fla.· 2015-06-25 ·cited 3×
  The court denied motions to add parties and a TCPA claim due to lack of diligence, but granted leave to add claims for punitive damages under the FCRA and FCCPA.
• Fuente Cigar, Ltd. v. Opus One
  985 F. Supp. 1448· M.D. Fla.· 1997-11-05 ·cited 3×
  The court granted leave for Opus One to amend its complaint to add a claim for damages and an anti-dilution claim, finding these amendments were not futile. The court also found that Fuente could amend its complaint to add a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
• Simon Holdings PLC Grp. of Cos. U.K. v. Klenz
  878 F. Supp. 210· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-02 ·cited 3×
  A foreign-chartered corporation with its principal place of business in the United States is considered both an alien and a citizen of that state for diversity jurisdiction purposes, thus destroying complete diversity when suing or being sued by another alien.
• Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. Lakewood Eng'g & Mfg. Corp.
  982 F.2d 363· 9th Cir.· 1992-12-23 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 did not authorize the exclusion of evidence for pre-filing destruction, the district court properly excluded the evidence under its inherent powers to manage its affairs and ensure a fair trial. The court also affirmed
• Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.
  929 F.2d 1515· 10th Cir.· 1991-04-11 ·cited 3×
  A party does not waive the right to appeal a dismissal of a claim if the claim was already dismissed on its merits and repleading it would be futile. The court also held that the actions of the appellee did not breach an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Oklah
• Jackson v. Bank OF Haw.
  902 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint due to undue prejudice and delay, and that summary judgment was properly granted because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook
  867 F.2d 1330· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 3×
  The district court erred in dismissing the insurer's declaratory judgment action as premature, as a federal 'case or controversy' existed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, irrespective of Georgia's procedural law on justiciability.
• State Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Lubbock v. W.M. Campbell
  848 F.2d 1186· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that extrinsic evidence was admissible to clarify an ambiguous guaranty agreement, and the district court did not err in allowing amendment of the counterclaim or denying the motion for directed verdict.
• Samaha v. The Presbyterian Hosp. IN the City OF NEW York
  757 F.2d 529· 2d Cir.· 1985-03-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to amend a complaint to drop non-diverse defendants solely to preserve diversity jurisdiction, absent prejudice to the remaining defendants.
• Aalco Constr. Co. v. F. H. Linneman Constr. Co., Inc.
  399 F.2d 516· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-04 ·cited 3×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that an oral agreement to indemnify is enforceable under Oklahoma law and is not subject to the Statute of Frauds, and that the trial court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
• Ibrahim & Harroon Real Est., Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co.
  2019 WL 5085038· M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-02 ·cited 2×·via Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 15(A)(2) (Leave To Amend)
  The court granted defendants' motions to reopen discovery and amend their answer, finding good cause under Rule 16 and allowing amendment under Rule 15.
• Ferry v. Bekum Am. Corp.
  185 F. Supp. 2d 1285· M.D. Fla.· 2002-02-22 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A federal court cannot drop a nondiverse plaintiff over that plaintiff's objection to create or preserve subject matter jurisdiction in a removed case, absent fraudulent joinder.
• MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. Best Tel. Co., Inc.
  898 F. Supp. 868· S.D. Fla.· 1994-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the filed tariff doctrine precludes the defendant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim, but a material issue of fact exists regarding the amount owed.
• Confederate Mem'l Ass'n, Inc. v. Hines
  995 F.2d 295· D.C. Cir.· 1993-06-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the RICO claim with prejudice but vacated the dismissal of state law claims and Rule 11 sanctions for lack of explanation.
• Romeo G. Wisdom v. Intrepid Sea-Air Space Museum
  993 F.2d 5· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The Second Circuit held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to cases pending at the time of its enactment.
• James v. McCAW Cellular Commc'ns, Inc.
  988 F.2d 583· 5th Cir.· 1993-04-19 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment because the appellant's chain of title was defective and the FCC applications were fatally flawed under FCC regulations.
• Medigen OF Kentucky v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF W. Va.
  985 F.2d 164· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that West Virginia's certification requirement for medical waste transporters, which restricts market entry based on existing service adequacy, unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause. The court also affirmed the district co
• Bhd. Shipping Co., Ltd. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. & City of Milwaukee
  985 F.2d 323· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the city's negligence.
• Alley v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for the Fed. Asset Disposition Ass'n
  984 F.2d 1201· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preempted the former employees' state-law claims regarding benefit policies, the district court should have granted them leave to amend their complaints to assert claims under ERISA.
• Wildauer v. Frederick Cnty.
  993 F.2d 369· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint or in granting summary judgment for the defendants, affirming the lower court's decision.
• In re Roberts Farms Inc. v. Bultman
  980 F.2d 1248· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that an amended proof of claim was permissible as a clarification and did not prejudice the debtor, and that the law firm's records constituted an open book account, making the claim timely.
• Cotita v. Pharma-Plast
  974 F.2d 598· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the plaintiff's comparative negligence, nor in refusing to allow additional evidence of the manufacturer's fault during the damages phase.
• Figgie Int'l v. Miller
  966 F.2d 1178· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to alter the judgment and amend its complaint.
• Whitaker v. City OF Houston
  963 F.2d 831· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-26 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff may seek leave to amend a dismissed complaint, but the right to amend as a matter of course terminates upon dismissal; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend due to undue delay.
• Advey v. The Celotex Corp.
  962 F.2d 1177· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-28 ·cited 2×
  A notice of appeal filed during the pendency of a Rule 59(e) motion in one of two consolidated cases is a nullity as to that case, but not necessarily as to the other case if the parties and issues are not sufficiently merged.
• Prudhomme v. Tenneco OIL Co.
  955 F.2d 390· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-13 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the plaintiffs to proceed on a strict liability theory after the plaintiffs had withdrawn their motion to amend their complaint to add such a claim, thereby misleading the defendant and causing prejudice.
• Hoover v. Langston Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  958 F.2d 742· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint as time-barred and for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.
• Grissom v. Scott
  934 F.2d 656· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-28 ·cited 2×
  A district court cannot dismiss a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) after the plaintiff has paid a partial filing fee as ordered. Once a partial fee is paid, the complaint should be treated as if filed non-in forma pauperis, requiring a summons to issue.
• Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron
  933 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the reassignment clause was only triggered by failure to pay delay rentals, not by the lease's expiration, and that the renewal and extension clause did not bind the assignee of the lease.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Louisville v. Cont'l Ill. Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Chicago
  933 F.2d 466· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Continental did not breach its contractual duties to First National by attempting to amend the loan agreement without unanimous consent, as the amendment was a nullity and caused no harm, and First National was not entitled to attorney's fees.
• In re W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. & United States Gypsum Co.
  923 F.2d 42· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's order permitting intervention did not contravene the prior mandate, and thus denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Katz v. Morgenthau
  892 F.2d 20· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging an illegal search and seizure violating the Fourth Amendment, but affirmed the dismissal of all other claims.
• Est. OF Kathleen Ann Johnson v. Vill. OF Libertyville
  819 F.2d 174· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the parents lacked standing to sue as special administrators because their appointment was void under Illinois law, and they failed to plead individual injuries to themselves in their own right.
• Sola v. Lafayette Coll.
  804 F.2d 40· 3d Cir.· 1986-10-28 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court affirmed summary judgment on wrongful discharge and most contract claims, but vacated and remanded the affirmative action claim for further consideration.
• Caribbean Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Bankers Life Assurance Co. OF Fla.
  754 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a contract for a general agent's appointment in Puerto Rico is void if the agent lacks the required license, and a party cannot belatedly change their legal theory to avoid this consequence.
• Depositors Tr. Co. v. Slobusky
  692 F.2d 205· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a pretrial agreement not raised in the pleadings and did not err in finding the defendant liable on the note despite prior jury instructions that suggested exhaustion of claims against another party was r
• Hemphill v. Melton
  551 F.2d 589· 4th Cir.· 1977-03-14 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, liberally interpreted, stated a potential cause of action under Title VII, and thus should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Taylor v. Beckas
  424 F.2d 905· D.C. Cir.· 1970-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the plaintiff to amend her complaint to reduce the ad damnum, as leave to amend should be freely given when justice requires.
• In re Sturdevant v. Maley
  415 F.2d 465· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that objections to a bankrupt's discharge are amendable and that the amended objections met the required pleading standards.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Perkins
  388 F.2d 771· 10th Cir.· 1968-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a party cannot amend its pleading as a matter of course after an appeal from an order dismissing the complaint and action has been affirmed, and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to allow amendments to a terminated case.
• Brown v. Dunbar & Sullivan Dredging Co.
  189 F.2d 871· 2d Cir.· 1951-06-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to prove its defense of good faith reliance on agency rulings under the Portal-to-Portal Act, and that the amended complaint was properly allowed.
• Herrin Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jarvis
  156 F.2d 276· 5th Cir.· 1946-06-27 ·cited 2×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing an amendment to the complaint, finding sufficient evidence of negligence, and applying Mississippi's comparative negligence law.
• Kennedy v. AmGUARD Ins. Co.
  2013 WL 12092257· S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-21 ·cited 1×
  The court recommended granting the defendant's motion to amend its affirmative defenses and denying the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint and remand the case.