-
220 F.2d 325·
3d Cir.·
1955-03-18
·cited 36×
The citizenship of a guardian, not the incompetent ward, controls for determining diversity jurisdiction in federal court.
-
689 F.2d 281·
1st Cir.·
1982-09-22
·cited 23×
The court held that Freda Smith lacked standing to sue as next friend for LSS residents, but the Developmental Disabilities Advocacy Center (DDAC) did have standing to assert its First Amendment organizational rights regarding communication with residents. The case is remanded fo
-
557 F.2d 170·
8th Cir.·
1977-06-29
·cited 18×
The court held that dismissing a minor's action for refusing to notify her parents of guardianship proceedings was an abuse of discretion, as the parents' interests were adverse to the minor's privacy claim.
-
486 F.2d 402·
D.C. Cir.·
1973-08-21
·cited 18×
The court held that the district judge properly exercised discretion in denying a request for a physical and mental examination of the plaintiff, as the petitioner's claim lacked substance.
-
237 F.2d 380·
4th Cir.·
1956-10-10
·cited 18×
A district court has the authority to award attorneys' fees from a recovery obtained for an infant plaintiff in a Social Security benefits case.
-
167 F.2d 218·
5th Cir.·
1948-04-16
·cited 16×
A default judgment against an adjudicated incompetent is voidable if proper service on a guardian or guardian ad litem was not made, and if the incompetent had a meritorious defense.
-
937 F.2d 876·
3d Cir.·
1991-07-01
·cited 8×
A non-attorney parent cannot represent minor children in federal court; the children's claims are vacated and remanded for potential appointment of counsel or dismissal. The parent's own claims are affirmed as time-barred.
-
906 F.2d 59·
2d Cir.·
1990-06-21
·cited 7×
A non-attorney parent cannot represent their minor child pro se in federal court; the parent must retain counsel or request appointed counsel.
-
874 F.2d 131·
3d Cir.·
1989-05-03
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to appoint a new next friend for the child and dismissing her claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the grandmother's individual claims.
-
788 F.2d 1280·
7th Cir.·
1986-04-22
·cited 6×
The court held that the reorganization court was not required to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor potential claimant and that the claimant's suit was barred by laches and the claims deadline.
-
883 F.2d 25·
5th Cir.·
1989-09-11
·cited 5×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's capacity to sue. The district court must determine if the plaintiff can represent the infant under state law or appoint a suitable representative.
-
22 F. Supp. 2d 1343·
M.D. Fla.·
1998-09-21
·cited 4×
The court held that defendants are entitled to immunity and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for both federal and state law causes of action.
-
725 F.2d 1392·
D.C. Cir.·
1984-01-13
·cited 4×
Guardians ad litem can be awarded fees regardless of the litigation's outcome, as they are court officers tasked with protecting minors.
-
873 F.2d 25·
2d Cir.·
1989-04-17
·cited 3×
The court held that while the Committee lacked standing to sue on its own behalf due to no judicially cognizable injury, it had the capacity to sue as 'next friend' for the children to vindicate their constitutional right to an environment free from racially discriminatory practi
-
800 F.2d 377·
4th Cir.·
1986-09-08
·cited 2×
The court held that mental incompetence is not an absolute defense to tort liability under Maryland law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for the defendant, despite his pro se status and unusual conduct.
-
184 F. Supp. 124·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-04-30
·cited 1×
The court found the plaintiff mentally incompetent to understand the litigation and appointed a guardian ad litem to protect her interests.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2026-02-10
The court held that a pro se litigant cannot represent others, and the second amended complaint was dismissed as a shotgun pleading, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-10-14
The court recommended granting the motion to allow parties to consummate their settlement, as neither federal procedural rules nor maritime law require court approval or a guardian ad litem when a minor's parent, with aligned interests, represents them in a maritime claim.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-03-28
A non-attorney parent cannot represent their minor child pro se in federal court, even in social security benefit cases.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-24
The court recommended granting the unopposed motion to approve a settlement agreement for minors, finding it to be in their best interest.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-30
The court denied the defendant's motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff stated a claim for relief under the IDEA and that personal jurisdiction was established.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-04-10
A non-attorney parent cannot represent a minor child pro se in federal court, and a complaint attempting to do so fails to state a claim.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-02-04
The court denied the parties' petition to approve a minor's settlement because the executed settlement agreement was not provided, and the parties failed to provide legal authority for a non-disclosure provision.
-
957 F.2d 50·
2d Cir.·
1992-02-19
The court held that while a federal question was raised regarding due process, the plaintiff failed to state a claim for the appointment of a guardian ad litem in deportation proceedings.
-
916 F.2d 1032·
5th Cir.·
1990-11-08
The court held that the district court erred by declaring the plaintiff incompetent and appointing a guardian ad litem without affording him a due process hearing. The law of the litigant's domicile determines competence to sue, but federal procedures can be used for the determin