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

• Ailshire v. Darnell
  508 F.2d 526· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 24×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court erred by treating a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity for the plaintiff to respond.
• Groninger v. Merrill E. Davison
  364 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1966-08-26 ·cited 24×
  A federal court in a diversity action must apply state law to determine when an action is commenced for the purpose of tolling the statute of limitations, even if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a different method for commencement.
• Ricciuti v. Voltarc Tubes, Inc.
  277 F.2d 809· 2d Cir.· 1960-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The statute of limitations for a latent disease begins to run when the disease is diagnosed, not when the exposure or act causing it occurred, unless the plaintiff could have reasonably discovered the injury earlier.
• Grandey v. Pac. Indem. Co.
  217 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-24 ·cited 24×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on a misnomer in the defendant's name, as the intended party was served and not prejudiced.
• Dist. Council 47 v. Bradley
  795 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 23×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in excusing deficient pleadings and the failure to seek leave to amend, asserting that civil rights claims require specific factual allegations tying defendants to the alleged deprivations.
• Ayatollah Syed M. J. Iqbal Jafree v. Barber
  689 F.2d 640· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-12 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend, as the mandamus claim was legally impossible and the civil rights claims lacked factual allegations of racial discrimination.
• United States v. Timmons
  672 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-12 ·cited 23×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of counterclaims, holding that defendants' claims were barred by res judicata, sovereign immunity, and statutes of limitations.
• Topalian v. Ehrman
  954 F.2d 1125· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue for trial, and thus affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
• Eldridge v. Block
  832 F.2d 1132· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the pro se prisoner's timely request for an extension to file an amended complaint, especially when the prisoner lacked access to the necessary local rules, and thus the subsequent dismissal was also an abuse
• Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.
  823 F.2d 945· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-09 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a new cause of action.
• Glick v. Koenig
  766 F.2d 265· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-13 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's original complaint and denied his motion to amend, and that the award of attorney fees was appropriate.
• Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd.
  760 F.2d 442· 2d Cir.· 1985-04-24 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments, finding that the denial of the motion to amend was proper due to prejudice, summary judgment on fraud and negligence claims was warranted by lack of evidence, and reformation was unavailable.
• Cranberg v. Consumers Union OF U.S., Inc.
  756 F.2d 382· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-01 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of no liability for all defendants, holding that the articles and statements were substantially true and that the plaintiff failed to prove actual malice where applicable.
• In re Romulus Cmty. Schs. v. Romulus Cmty. Schs.
  729 F.2d 431· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 22×
  A district court has the discretion to remand pendent state law claims to state court after the federal basis for removal jurisdiction has been eliminated, even if the remand is not based on a specific statutory ground for remand.
• Serv. Merchandise Co., Inc. v. The Boyd Corp.
  722 F.2d 945· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 22×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the jury's finding of a Sherman Act conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court properly limited damages to the period before Amana's revised distributorship agreement, as subsequent restrictions were the superseding cause of any f
• Gardner v. S. Ry. Sys.
  675 F.2d 949· 7th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the exclusion of prior accident evidence and the amendment of the answer, but reversed and remanded the denial of costs.
• DOE v. McMILLAN
  566 F.2d 713· D.C. Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 22×
• Coates v. Ill. State Bd. OF Educ.
  559 F.2d 445· 7th Cir.· 1977-06-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a federal claim because it did not allege segregative intent, which is required for both Title VI and constitutional challenges to school segregation. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim.
• Weinberger v. Retail Credit Co.
  498 F.2d 552· 4th Cir.· 1974-05-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, and the allegations of fraudulent concealment were insufficient to toll those statutes.
• Local 783, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  471 F.2d 751· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-05 ·cited 22×
• Farkas v. Tex. Instruments, Inc.
  429 F.2d 849· 1st Cir.· 1970-07-10 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the action against Texas Instruments (TI) for lack of jurisdiction, but reversed the denial of leave to amend the complaint against Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV).
• W. C. Shepherd Co., Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co.
  192 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1951-11-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in striking the answer and counterclaim without affording the appellants an opportunity to amend, as the answer raised a justiciable issue regarding the surety's alleged breach of contract through unreasonable delay in making advances.
• Ermel I. Coon v. Ga. Pac. Corp.
  829 F.2d 1563· 11th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot litigate claims not pleaded in the complaint, even if mentioned in a pretrial stipulation or related to an EEOC charge, and that class certification requires meeting specific Rule 23(a) criteria.
• Smith v. City OF Chicago
  820 F.2d 916· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the plaintiff's § 1983 action was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same core operative facts as his prior Shakman petition, which had been dismissed on the merits.
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman
  796 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 21×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the substitution of USF&G for Aetna did not cure the lack of diversity jurisdiction because the original plaintiff lacked standing, rendering the amendment a new lawsuit, and subsequent events do not create jurisdiction.
• Staggers v. Otto Gerdau Co., Inc.
  359 F.2d 292· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-11 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the orders were appealable under a practical construction of finality and that the district court should have granted the motions for substitution and amendment of the complaint.
• Instituto De Prevision Militar v. Lehman Bros., Inc.
  485 F. Supp. 2d 1340· S.D. Fla.· 2007-05-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied because the case was a 'covered class action' preempted by SLUSA, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failing to comply with prior orders.
• The Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture
  835 F.2d 1329· 10th Cir.· 1988-01-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that federal law of res judicata applies to diversity actions and that the plaintiff's second lawsuit was barred by claim preclusion because the claims arose from a series of connected transactions that should have been litigated together in the first action.
• DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton
  833 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without providing a justifying reason, as such denial is inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Skevofilax v. Sergeant William Quigley
  810 F.2d 378· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the police officers' indemnification claim against the township under Rule 69.
• Hung Hy Nguyen dba Mekong Mkt. v. United States
  792 F.2d 1500· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-01 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the prior mandates did not preclude the district court from allowing amendments to the pleadings to raise new issues. However, in Bertrand's case, the district court erred by failing to enter summary judgment for the government as previously ordered.
• C. Roger Youmans, Jr., M.D. v. Simon
  791 F.2d 341· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 20×
  The court held that some real estate venture interests were not securities, but one was potentially a security, and civil RICO claims should be reinstated. The denial of a motion to amend the complaint was affirmed.
• In re Scott
  709 F.2d 717· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 20×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A district court abuses its discretion by sua sponte transferring a FOIA case based solely on the burden of prisoner litigation, especially when Congress designated the District of Columbia as a proper venue.
• McCARTIN v. Norton
  674 F.2d 1317· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-22 ·cited 20×
  The court holds that McCartin stated a claim only for nonmonetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) for arbitrary and capricious agency conduct, rejecting claims under the First Amendment, APA, and for damages.
• Jordan v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  669 F.2d 1311· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a class representative who has voluntarily settled their individual claims may still be able to represent the class if they can provide vigorous advocacy, despite lacking a personal stake.
• Cleveland Consol., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Raymond J. Donovan
  649 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 20×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that an employer's chosen construction method does not excuse compliance with OSHA regulations, and alternative methods may be required if feasible. The court also affirmed the classification of a welded ladder as a 'fixed ladder'.
• Chancery Clerk OF Chickasaw Cnty. v. Wallace
  646 F.2d 151· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that individuals involuntarily confined in state mental institutions may bring a § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of the commitment procedures, and that abstention was not appropriate. However, the court vacated the certification of the defendant cla
• Hayden v. Ford Motor Co.
  497 F.2d 1292· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to plead it in a timely manner, and thus the district court's summary judgment based on that defense must be reversed.
• Bush v. The United States Postal Serv.
  496 F.2d 42· 4th Cir.· 1974-04-29 ·cited 20×
  The court would affirm dismissal for failure to prosecute, but for a peculiar circumstance regarding how the hearing date was set.
• Local 179, United Textile Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Fed. Paper Stock Co.
  461 F.2d 849· 8th Cir.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the union's motion for leave to amend the complaint to join employees who had not personally filed EEOC charges, as the union had filed a charge on their behalf and the EEOC process had been completed.
• Mattel, Inc. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc.
  353 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 20×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the first-filed action should generally proceed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, and the New York court erred in staying the New Jersey action.
• United States v. A. H. Fischer Lumber Co.
  162 F.2d 872· 4th Cir.· 1947-07-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the actions based on misnomer in the summons and complaint, as amendments should have been allowed to correct the misnomer.
• Sinay v. The Lamson & Sessions Co.
  948 F.2d 1037· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 19×
  The court held that statements made by a corporation and its officers are not actionable under securities fraud laws if they are accompanied by sufficient cautionary language and are made in good faith, even if subsequent events prove them wrong.
• Richardson Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Mui-Hin LAU
  825 F.2d 647· 2d Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 19×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to amend a pleading is not immediately appealable as a final decision or under the collateral order doctrine, but the attempted appeal would be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Robinson v. City OF Fairfield
  750 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the plaintiff's action was timely commenced by filing an application for appointment of counsel, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning a remedy based on a comparison with a higher-classified white employee.
• Jennette Carter v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp.
  684 F.2d 187· 1st Cir.· 1982-08-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the § 1981 claim due to the statute of limitations and in denying the motion to amend the complaint to add a Title VII claim.
• Spicer v. Hilton
  618 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 19×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state directly under the Fourteenth Amendment is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but remanded for the plaintiff to amend his complaint to sue the appropriate state official.
• Florida Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1239· S.D. Fla.· 2004-07-26 ·cited 18×
  The court denied motions to amend, granted summary judgment for DuPont on fraud claims, denied summary judgment for DuPont on breach of settlement claims, and granted motions to dismiss, closing the cases.
• Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc.
  864 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dismissal of Active's claims due to an arbitration clause was proper, the transfer of venue was not an abuse of discretion, the Sparlings' fraud claims were properly dismissed for failure to plead with particularity, the Sparlings lacked standing to assert
• Magnus Elecs., Inc. v. LA Republica Argentina
  830 F.2d 1396· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 18×
  Res judicata bars the current suit because it involves the same cause of action and parties as a prior suit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the additional allegations were available previously. Rule 11 sanctions are reversed and remanded for reconsideration