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

• McGLINCHY v. Shell Chem. Co.
  845 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1988-04-22 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony and denying leave to amend, and properly granted summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish damages and antitrust injury.
• Rice v. Hamilton AIR Force Base Commissary
  720 F.2d 1082· 9th Cir.· 1983-11-21 ·cited 44×
  A pro se litigant's request for appointment of counsel, filed within the jurisdictional time limit and containing a description of the claim and administrative dispositions, can be considered the filing of a civil action under Title VII, and the proper defendant can be identified
• POE v. John Deere Co.
  695 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 44×
  The court held that res judicata barred the second suit because it arose from the same transaction as the first suit, and that the award of costs was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
• McKEEVER v. Israel
  689 F.2d 1315· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 44×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's decision to reverse the dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and reconsideration of other issues, arguing the majority erred in directing counsel appointment and in its approach to prisoner civil rights cases.
• Sackett v. Beaman
  399 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1968-09-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint because the proposed claim for damages was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Quinton Bowen v. State OF Tenn.
  698 F.2d 241· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 43×
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• Reberta Ingram v. Vijay S. Kumar
  585 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-19 ·cited 42×
  The court held that an amendment correcting a misnomer relates back to the original filing date if the defendant received notice within the period allowed for service of process, even if that period extends beyond the statute of limitations.
• Wallin v. Fuller
  476 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 42×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A trial court should permit amendment of pleadings to conform to issues actually tried by implied consent, even if those issues were not raised in the pretrial order.
• Walker v. Bank OF Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n
  268 F.2d 16· 9th Cir.· 1959-05-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, and that the denial of the motion to alter the dismissal order was not an abuse of discretion because the proposed amended complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Rosell v. VMSB, LLC
  67 F.4th 1141· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-12 ·cited 41×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) only permits the dismissal of an entire action, not a single claim or part of an action, and an attempted partial dismissal does not create a final judgment for appellate review.
• Union Planters Nat'l Leasing, Inc. v. Woods
  687 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment or in denying leave to amend the answer, as there were no genuine issues of material fact and the proposed amendment was futile.
• Howie Ray Robinson v. Wade
  686 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 40×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The Court held that the defendant's reprosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the prosecutor's conduct, while improper, did not demonstrate an intent to provoke a mistrial, and the court reporter's negligence in losing a transcript did not trigger double jeop
• Adams v. Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  483 F.2d 1351· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-10 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a motion to dismiss with attached affidavits, left uncontroverted for six months, can be treated as a motion for summary judgment without further notice.
• Kendall Sherman and Arthur Sherman, Jr. v. Hallbauer
  455 F.2d 1236· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-16 ·cited 40×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs ultimately presented a viable contractual theory for their claim, which should have been allowed to proceed to trial.
• Rinehart v. Locke
  454 F.2d 313· 7th Cir.· 1971-12-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the prior dismissal for failure to state a claim, without specification of being without prejudice, operated as res judicata, and that the statute of limitations had also expired.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims
  199 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-04 ·cited 40×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that while an appeal from an order denying a new trial is generally unappealable, the court would consider the appeal if the intent to appeal the underlying judgment was clear from the record. The court affirmed the judgment.
• Nolin v. Douglas Cnty.
  903 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late motion to amend the complaint, excluding employment guidelines due to lack of authentication, and granting a directed verdict for the defendants on due process and emotional distress claims.
• Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp. v. Brad's Mach. Prods., Inc.
  666 F.2d 492· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendments, admitting expert testimony, or in its jury instructions, and that the Robinson-Patman Act requires actual competition.
• Fifty Assocs. v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  446 F.2d 1187· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 39×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court clarified that its prior order did not mandate dismissal if jurisdiction could be established on remand, and that any jurisdiction found would apply retroactively.
• Wakeen v. Hoffman House, Inc.
  724 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a prior state court decision on an employment discrimination claim bars a subsequent federal Title VII action under res judicata, and that a class member who has not filed an EEOC charge cannot intervene to replace a dismissed class representative.
• Keniston v. Roberts
  717 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction for a due process claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Russell v. Moon Landrieu
  621 F.2d 1037· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 38×
  Tenants do not have a due process-protected entitlement to continued low-income housing after HUD forecloses on a project, but they may have a claim under the National Housing Act if HUD failed to consider its objectives when disposing of the property.
• McGRUDER v. Phelps
  608 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because the facts alleged regarding prolonged confinement and lack of outdoor exercise may constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.
• Cohen v. Ill. Inst. OF Tech.
  581 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint because the proposed amendments still failed to cure the original defect of insufficient allegations of state action.
• Cornell & Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  573 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 38×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The Commission abused its discretion by allowing the Secretary to amend the citation and complaint late in the proceedings, as this prejudiced the employer's ability to present its sole defense.
• Eskel Norbeck v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist.
  545 F.2d 63· 8th Cir.· 1976-11-29 ·cited 38×
• Mercantile Tr. Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Inland Marine Prods. Corp.
  542 F.2d 1010· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to amend its answer to assert a counterclaim and additional affirmative defenses due to undue delay and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.
• Hubicki v. ACF Indus.
  484 F.2d 519· 3d Cir.· 1973-08-20 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the appellant's claim without reaching the merits, and that the appellant should have been allowed to amend his complaint.
• Emich Motors Corp. & U. S. Acceptance Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp.
  229 F.2d 714· 7th Cir.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendants to amend their answer to include the statute of limitations defense, and that the cause of action accrued upon notice of cancellation, not its effective date.
• J.O. and P.O. v. Alton Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 11
  909 F.2d 267· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-03 ·cited 37×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review both the dismissal of federal claims and the remand of pendent state claims, and that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint.
• Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
  750 F.2d 1208· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on an untimely EEOC charge and that the denial of leave to amend the complaint and extend discovery was an abuse of discretion.
• Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp.
  623 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 37×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that admiralty jurisdiction was proper and that the defendants' consent to an amendment alleging admiralty jurisdiction waived their right to a jury trial. However, Texas Trailer's failure to cover openings was not the proximate cause of the injury, and Crescent wa
• Smith v. The Town OF Clarkton
  682 F.2d 1055· 4th Cir.· 1982-06-29 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the town officials' actions in halting a public housing project, motivated by racially discriminatory intent and effect, violated the Fair Housing Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Northlake Cmty. Hosp. v. The United States
  654 F.2d 1234· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the hospital's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as the hospital did not present colorable constitutional claims warranting waiver of administrative exhaustion requirements.
• O'Brien v. Moriarty
  489 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 36×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the plaintiffs' confinement conditions, while restrictive, did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and prison officials have broad discretion in managing security.
• Williams v. City OF Dothan
  745 F.2d 1406· 11th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as plaintiffs' claims were not barred by estoppel or the Tax Injunction Act, and a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding discriminatory intent.
• Bennett v. Bennett
  682 F.2d 1039· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-23 ·cited 35×
  The court held that federal courts can enforce state custody decrees and that a party should not be forced to waive injunctive relief to proceed in federal court.
• Davis v. Piper Aircraft Corp.
  615 F.2d 606· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 35×
  The court held that North Carolina law, which requires qualification as a personal representative and filing of a complaint within two years for wrongful death actions, should be applied in federal court, making the action time-barred.
• Jackson v. Duke
  259 F.2d 3· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-27 ·cited 35×·via Rule 15(a)
  The court held that the amended complaint correcting a misnomer related back to the original filing date for statute of limitations purposes, and that the original complaint sufficiently alleged federal jurisdiction.
• Cita Tr. Co. AG v. Fifth Third Bank
  879 F.3d 1151· 11th Cir.· 2018-01-16 ·cited 34×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  Cita Trust Company AG sued Fifth Third Bank for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from Fifth Third's unauthorized transfer of $428 million in bonds held in custody. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under a one-year contract
• Nance v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  817 F.2d 1176· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court did not err in resubmitting an amended verdict form to the jury due to inconsistent answers, nor in allowing a late amendment to the complaint. However, the court reversed due to the district court's failure to include a question about the e
• U.S. Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff
  768 F.2d 1099· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the magistrate's order allowing amendment was reviewable, the amended claim related back, and the salvage award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Moore v. State OF Fla. & Agents Ray Henderson
  703 F.2d 516· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a local rule requiring opposition to a summary judgment motion within 10 days does not constitute constructive notice for a pro se inmate, and that the inmate's First Amendment claim should have been considered as an amendment to the complaint.
• Leonard Lawson (81-3722) v. Truck Drivers
  698 F.2d 250· 6th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the 90-day Ohio statute of limitations for vacating arbitration awards applies to unfair representation actions against unions, and that this rule applies retroactively to pending cases.
• Scott v. Eversole Mortuary
  522 F.2d 1110· 9th Cir.· 1975-07-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, finding that the allegations, if true, sufficiently pleaded state action.
• Kerr v. Compagnie de Ultramar & Transmar Corp.
  250 F.2d 860· 2d Cir.· 1958-01-08 ·cited 34×
  A federal court has the power to dismiss a non-diverse, dispensable defendant to retain diversity jurisdiction, and failure to do so when no prejudice results is an abuse of discretion.
• Peckham v. Scanlon
  241 F.2d 761· 7th Cir.· 1957-02-27 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff, who was pro se and incarcerated, was entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right before a responsive pleading was filed, and the dismissal for want of prosecution was erroneous.
• Gordon v. Terry
  684 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 33×
• BOB Maxfield, Inc. v. Am. Motors Corp.
  637 F.2d 1033· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the directed verdicts for the defendants on the antitrust and Automobile Dealers Act claims, finding no evidence of coercion. However, it vacated and remanded the judgment on the counterclaims for a redetermination of the debt amounts due to unaddressed setoffs