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

• Hannah v. City OF Overland
  795 F.2d 1385· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding alibi evidence, deposition testimony, or denying leave to amend, and that any error in admitting prior convictions was harmless.
• Scott v. Schmidt
  773 F.2d 160· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed Scott's civil rights suit because the defendants were immune from suit and Scott failed to state a claim.
• Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Secretary OF Labor
  766 F.2d 575· D.C. Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Simplex consented to the scope of the OSHA inspection, the regulations were validly promulgated, the citation amendment was permissible, and the ALJ did not err in refusing to call certain witnesses.
• Allen v. Veterans Admin.
  749 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the United States did not receive sufficient notice of the original complaint within the statute of limitations period to allow the amended complaint naming the United States as a defendant to relate back.
• Gladhill v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Rockmont Motor Co.
  743 F.2d 1049· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 18×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that the officer's testimony regarding the cause of the accident and the absence of defects was speculative and lacked factual foundation.
• Darms v. McCULLOCH OIL Corp.
  720 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute, nor in denying class certification or granting partial summary judgment.
• Estes v. Ky. Utils. Co.
  636 F.2d 1131· 6th Cir.· 1980-12-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the defendant to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of workers' compensation exclusivity, even after a significant delay.
• Worldwide Church OF GOD, Inc. v. The State OF Cal.
  623 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court properly invoked Younger abstention to deny a preliminary injunction, but erred in denying the Church leave to amend its complaint.
• Polin v. DUN & Bradstreet, Inc.
  511 F.2d 875· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying leave to amend the complaint based on a mistaken belief that the statute of limitations had run, and that the two-year statute of limitations applies to all transactions.
• Hale v. Ralston Purina Co.
  432 F.2d 156· 8th Cir.· 1970-10-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint for the purposes of Rule 60(b)'s one-year limitation period, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.
• Voltmann v. United Fruit Co.
  147 F.2d 514· 2d Cir.· 1945-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury charge correctly applied an objective standard of negligence, and the verdict should be upheld despite a minor linguistic ambiguity.
• Def. Indus. v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
  938 F.2d 502· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 17×
  The Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury determination of the amount of punitive damages, and a district court cannot reduce such an award via judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, a district court's conditional grant of a new trial on the amount of punitive damages may b
• Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission
  930 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-18 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds because Japan is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests favors dismissal. The court also held that denying leave to am
• Abdallah W. Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon) S.A.L.
  838 F.2d 904· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-20 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add a negligence claim after ten years of litigation.
• First City Bank, N.A. v. AIR Capitol Aircraft Sales, Inc.
  820 F.2d 1127· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the answer, and correctly refused to instruct the jury on impairment of collateral.
• Engel v. Teleprompter Corp.
  732 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 17×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A district court retains authority to consider an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party even after a mandate from an appellate court instructs dismissal of the complaint, provided the application is timely and no prejudice results.
• Scoggins v. Charles Eugene Pollock, M.D.
  727 F.2d 1025· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 17×
  A party's domicile for diversity jurisdiction purposes is not changed by moving to another state solely for educational purposes if they lack the intent to remain there indefinitely.
• Kermitt Lee Waters and Jan L. Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co.
  582 F.2d 503· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-21 ·cited 17×
  Disclosure of information required by the Consumer Credit Protection Act is timely if made at any point until the parties enter into a contractual relationship, and disclosure at the time of closing satisfies this requirement.
• A. J. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
  503 F.2d 384· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the ability to raise the subject matter of a suit by counterclaim in the transferee district generally satisfies the "where it might have been brought" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if leave of court is required.
• Taylor v. Fla. State Fair Auth.
  875 F. Supp. 812· M.D. Fla.· 1995-02-03 ·cited 16×
  The court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint and denied defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Roman v. Jeffes
  904 F.2d 192· 3d Cir.· 1990-06-08 ·cited 16×
  Dismissal of a complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is inappropriate after service of process has been made on the defendants. Alternatively, the complaint had arguable merit, precluding such dismissal.
• McGEORGE v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  871 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 16×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal from the District of Columbia court's orders and affirmed the Oklahoma court's dismissal of the battery claim and denial of the motion to amend.
• Elliott v. Plato Foufas
  867 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead necessary elements for a RICO claim with sufficient specificity, and thus the dismissal of federal claims was proper.
• Letizia v. Prudential Bache Sec., Inc.
  802 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff should have been allowed to amend his complaint to challenge the validity of the arbitration clause, and that federal securities claims under Section 10(b) and 17(a) are not arbitrable.
• Ross v. Franzen
  777 F.2d 1216· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court should not sanction one prisoner suing on behalf of another, and the case should be dismissed.
• Johnson v. Educ. Testing Serv.
  754 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1985-01-31 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Educational Testing Service (ETS) is not a state actor for due process purposes, and that summary judgment was appropriate for the state law claims due to lack of genuine factual disputes and ETS's good faith actions.
• Bamm, Inc. v. GAF Corp.
  651 F.2d 389· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Bamm's motion for leave to amend its complaint.
• Walton v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
  623 F.2d 796· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellants failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because Morgan Stanley did not owe a fiduciary duty to Olinkraft, despite receiving confidential information.
• Kenil K. Goss v. Revlon
  548 F.2d 405· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while a § 1981 claim could relate back and be timely, denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion due to the plaintiff's undue delay and ignorance of the law. The court remanded for a determination on the amendment motion.
• Jackson v. The Am. BAR Ass'n
  538 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the ABA's actions did not constitute state action under the Fifth Amendment.
• Joiner Sys., Inc. v. AVM Corp., Inc.
  517 F.2d 45· 3d Cir.· 1975-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on pre-repudiation damages because the issue was neither properly pleaded nor tried with the parties' consent.
• Carson v. Allied News Co.
  511 F.2d 22· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while 28 U.S.C. § 1653 might allow amendments to cure jurisdictional defects, this specific case is not appropriate for the appellate court to dismiss a non-diverse party.
• Wilburn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. OF ST. Louis
  492 F.2d 1288· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint without a justifying reason, despite the plaintiff's good faith contention of estoppel.
• Vickery v. Fisher Governor Co.
  417 F.2d 466· 9th Cir.· 1969-10-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the contract's termination clause was unambiguous and that the parol evidence rule barred extrinsic evidence to alter its terms, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Smith Contracting Corp. v. Trojan Const. Co., Inc.
  192 F.2d 234· 10th Cir.· 1951-10-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow a counterclaim amendment when justice required it, even if it deviated from a pretrial agreement.
• Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Abbott
  130 F.2d 40· 4th Cir.· 1942-08-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insurer was bound by the prior judgment against the bank, as the defenses raised were either previously litigated or insufficiently pleaded.
• McCOOL v. Strata OIL Co.
  972 F.2d 1452· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Illinois statute of limitations, as it existed on June 19, 1991, applies to the securities fraud claim due to Congressional action and the investors' reliance on prior precedent. The court also found no evidence of fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll
• Andrews v. Metro N. Commuter R.R. Co.
  882 F.2d 705· 2d Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the original complaint into evidence and by allowing an unqualified expert to testify on ultimate issues of negligence and legal standards of care, requiring a new trial.
• Gilmore v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
  811 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 15×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  A defendant's explicit waiver of a motion to compel arbitration is not automatically revived by the plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint.
• Beaudett v. City OF Hampton
  775 F.2d 1274· 4th Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 15×·via Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure
  The court held that a pro se litigant's vague references to potential claims do not obligate the district court to address issues not fairly presented, and affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv.
  753 F.2d 1088· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-15 ·cited 15×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because the trial court failed to consider equitable tolling for the Title VII filing requirements and did not address factual issues regarding the Privacy Act claim's timeliness.
• Diminnie v. United States & Daniel Patterson
  728 F.2d 301· 6th Cir.· 1984-02-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that FTCA claims are barred by statutory exclusions and statutes of limitations, and that a plaintiff's cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows of the injury and its cause, and that the government actively concealed the culprit's identity. The cou
• Holloway v. Dobbs
  715 F.2d 390· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not state a claim for denial of access to the courts or for cruel and unusual punishment, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Glater v. ELI Lilly & Co.
  712 F.2d 735· 1st Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the defendant did not waive its right to raise the personal jurisdiction defense, and the pendency of a class action did not preclude dismissal. The court deferred final decision pending the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case.
• Guam Inv. Co., Inc. v. Cent. Bldg., Inc.
  288 F.2d 19· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-01 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a district court cannot dismiss a complaint on the grounds of res judicata by taking judicial notice of its own records in a prior, distinct case without those records being introduced into evidence.
• Miller v. Glanz
  948 F.2d 1562· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-18 ·cited 14×·via Rule 15(a)
  The court held that a district court's consideration of matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is reversible error unless harmless, and that witnesses have absolute immunity from civil liability for conspiracy to present perjured testimony.
• Cortec Indus., Inc. v. SUM Holding L.P.
  949 F.2d 42· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while Westinghouse was not a statutory seller under § 12(2) because it sold to plaintiffs' seller, plaintiffs may be allowed to replead their claim based on solicitation if they can allege facts showing Westinghouse was motivated by financial interest in solic
• Miller v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
  925 F.2d 979· 6th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend or in granting summary judgment, as the insurer acted reasonably and not arbitrarily and capriciously in terminating benefits.
• Commercial Credit Equip. Corp. v. Stamps
  920 F.2d 1361· 7th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while compensatory damages for fraud and conversion were supported by the evidence, punitive damages and prejudgment interest were improperly awarded. Costs for videotaping depositions were allowed, but not for their transcripts.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Morley
  915 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a full evidentiary hearing for a deficiency judgment, as the parties had ample opportunity to submit evidence and argument.