Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 25(A)(1) Substitution Of Parties

10 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Saverio D. Iovino and Leonard P. Luisi v. Waterson
  274 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1959-12-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) permits the substitution of a foreign administratrix for a deceased defendant, even if the application is made more than two years after death, and that this application does not violate due process or the Enabling Act.
• Edmondson v. State OF Neb. ex rel. Clarence A. H. Meyer
  383 F.2d 123· 8th Cir.· 1967-09-12 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the denial of intervention was proper because the intervenor had no right to intervene and permissive intervention was within the trial court's discretion to deny.
• Ransom v. Brennan
  437 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-11 ·cited 22×
  A federal court must properly serve a deceased party's representative under Rule 4 to obtain personal jurisdiction over them, even if the court had jurisdiction over the deceased. Actual notice or service on the deceased's attorney is insufficient.
• McSURELY v. McCLELLAN
  753 F.2d 88· D.C. Cir.· 1985-01-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that party substitution was properly effected and affirmed the verdict against investigator Brick for common law privacy violation, but reversed other verdicts against Senate defendants due to qualified immunity and insufficient evidence.
• Graham v. The Pa. R.R. & The Wash. Terminal Co.
  342 F.2d 914· D.C. Cir.· 1964-12-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to enlarge the time for substituting a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1).
• Grandbouche v. Lovell
  913 F.2d 835· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a formal suggestion of death, served according to Rule 25(a)(1) and Rule 4 for non-parties, is required to trigger the 90-day limitations period for substitution, and mere references to death in prior proceedings are insufficient.
• Alexander v. Lighthouse Ins. Grp., LLC
  2024 WL 245808· M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-24 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the motion to substitute the deceased plaintiff's husband as the named plaintiff because he failed to provide sufficient evidence of his legal authority to represent the estate.
• The Est. of Deborah Ann Wright v. Mina
  2016 WL 7177621· M.D. Fla.· 2023-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The Court granted the unopposed motion for substitution of parties because there was a sufficient showing of excusable neglect for the delay.
• Pino v. Figueroa
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-06
  The court granted the parties' joint motion to substitute the personal representative of the deceased defendant's estate as the defendant, treating it as a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
• Chishti v. Samuel Coraluzzo Co., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-02-08
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to substitute a deceased defendant's estate and their motion to remand.