-
516 F.2d 772·
7th Cir.·
1975-05-06
·cited 54×
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside costs awarded to the prevailing party under Rule 54(d) when the losing party showed no fault. However, the denial of expenses and attorney fees under Rule 37(c) was affirmed due to the trial court's bro
-
271 F.2d 910·
2d Cir.·
1959-11-05
·cited 40×
The court held that dismissal of the complaint was improper and that the preclusion order was too broad in certain respects, requiring reversal and remand.
-
850 F.2d 1028·
3d Cir.·
1988-06-30
·cited 34×
The court held that the district court's factual finding regarding the refund policy was clearly erroneous due to a disregarded admission, requiring vacation of the refund award. The court affirmed the denial of interest and attorneys' fees.
-
748 F.2d 150·
3d Cir.·
1984-11-14
·cited 27×
The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the district court's order denying summary judgment on the FOIA claim and the order denying a mandatory injunction to compel consent for disclosure.
-
686 F.2d 66·
1st Cir.·
1982-08-20
·cited 27×
A district court cannot disregard admissions deemed made under Rule 36 due to untimely responses simply because the court finds other evidence more credible, especially after trial has commenced, unless doing so would prevent manifest injustice.
-
542 F.2d 1318·
7th Cir.·
1976-10-21
·cited 25×
The court held that a district court cannot compel parties to stipulate facts, and sanctions imposed for failure to do so are improper.
-
697 F.2d 356·
D.C. Cir.·
1983-01-04
·cited 21×
The majority's novel holding that a 'technical admission' can satisfy the Statute of Frauds' written memorandum requirement is incorrect.
-
697 F.2d 130·
6th Cir.·
1983-01-03
·cited 13×
The court held that the trial court erred by prohibiting an attorney of record from testifying and by ruling that the defendant admitted the accuracy of stock summaries under Rule 36. The case is remanded for a new trial.
-
834 F.2d 1345·
7th Cir.·
1987-11-25
·cited 12×
The court held that the government's motion for summary judgment was valid despite initial defects, and the defendants' failure to respond to requests for admissions resulted in those matters being deemed admitted, supporting the grant of summary judgment.
-
358 F.2d 686·
2d Cir.·
1966-03-29
·cited 12×
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that untimely responses to requests for admission do not automatically require summary judgment if no prejudice is shown.
-
50 F.4th 23·
11th Cir.·
2022-09-26
·cited 9×
The Anti-Injunction Act does not bar a defendant from moving for a protective order in an action initiated by the government, as such a motion does not constitute a 'suit' for the purpose of restraining tax assessment or collection.
-
728 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1984-02-10
·cited 8×
The court held that the plaintiffs waived their statutory privilege of confidentiality by failing to object to the testimony of the psychiatrists in the prior family court proceedings.
-
26 F. Supp. 198·
S.D. Fla.·
2014-11-14
·cited 6×
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to compel defendants to answer requests for admissions because the defendants' responses were procedurally sufficient and the requests themselves were vague and unclear.
-
926 F.2d 289·
3d Cir.·
1991-02-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of damages to withstand a directed verdict, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him.
-
829 F.2d 511·
4th Cir.·
1987-09-21
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the district court's judgments, holding that the district court is the proper initial forum to address allegations of fraud or misconduct in discovery, and that the plaintiff's additional grounds for appeal did not independently justify reversal.
-
753 F.2d 444·
5th Cir.·
1985-02-20
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly allowed amendment of defective service of a cross-claim under Rule 4(h) and that arbitration agreements did not preclude the court's jurisdiction over all damage claims.
-
324 F.2d 74·
10th Cir.·
1963-11-01
·cited 6×
The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the chair was manufactured by the defendant.
-
38 F.4th 876·
11th Cir.·
2022-06-24
·cited 4×
The City's financial reliance on fines and fees does not create an unconstitutional risk of bias in its municipal court judge, prosecutor, police, or code enforcement agents, as their independence and lack of direct financial incentive in individual case outcomes are sufficient.
-
646 F.2d 699·
1st Cir.·
1981-04-17
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the defendants' vague admissions and lack of specific factual opposition were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, and their purported disclosures did not meet regulatory requirem
-
516 F.2d 959·
4th Cir.·
1975-06-09
·cited 4×
The court held that the Jenkins Act is constitutional and that the district court did not err in granting the injunction.
-
422 F.2d 638·
7th Cir.·
1970-02-11
·cited 4×
The court held that diversity jurisdiction was proper, the lease and guarantee were valid and enforceable, and all equipment installed by the tenant became the landlord's property under the lease terms.
-
969 F.2d 298·
7th Cir.·
1992-07-17
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the administrative law judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the physician's procedural and due process arguments lacked merit.
-
342 So. 2d 1034·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1977-02-18
·cited 2×
A party's Request for Admission, even if deemed admitted by the opposing party's failure to respond, does not bind the requesting party and should not be submitted to the jury as an instruction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-07-31
This order establishes a Hurricane Scheduling Order for an insurance dispute, outlining specific deadlines and procedures for discovery, motions, and mediation to ensure prompt and efficient resolution.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-06-25
The court held that a blanket protective order is not warranted based solely on the number of requests for admission, and a motion to compel must be filed in the district where compliance is required.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-05-07
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendant from using the plaintiff's trademarks on counterfeit goods and restraining the defendant's assets.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-28
The court held that defendants satisfied their discovery obligations by producing electronically stored information (ESI) in TIFF format with load files, as this complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E).
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-10-22
The court overruled most of Panama's objections to discovery requests, ordering production of documents, and directed parties to confer on specific issues, while sustaining some objections as irrelevant to the setoff defense.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-15
The court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel the defendant's deposition but denied their request for contempt sanctions, finding them unwarranted without a history of non-compliance.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-11-17
The court granted plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to respond to discovery requests and to serve out-of-time answers to requests for admissions, finding excusable neglect and no prejudice to the opposing party.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-04
The court granted the motion to compel discovery and deemed requests for admission admitted due to the plaintiff's failure to respond or oppose the motion.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-11-29
The court held that some requests for admission were improper as they sought legal conclusions or central disputed facts, while others required amended responses due to insufficient answers.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-28
The court granted the plaintiff's motion for relief from technical admissions and denied the defendant's motion to strike and for sanctions.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-08-19
Summary judgment is granted for the plaintiff on his retaliation claims under the FCRA and FLSA because the defendant admitted to terminating the plaintiff in retaliation for his complaints. Summary judgment is denied on the discrimination claim due to disputed facts.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-04-01
The court denied the petitioner's motion for discovery because his Rule 60(d)(3) motion was a successive § 2255 motion requiring prior appellate authorization, and even if treated as a Rule 60(d)(3) motion, it lacked the requisite showing of fraud.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2022-03-17
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses and attorney's fees due to the defendant's failure to timely respond to discovery requests and the motion itself.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-06-14
The court held that the defendant's motion for a protective order, seeking to prevent the IRS from using his Rule 36 admissions in a penalty examination, was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2020-07-31
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel discovery regarding officer identification and financial information as premature due to the qualified immunity defense, but granted defendant's motion to compel plaintiff's deposition.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-04-30
The court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motions to compel discovery, finding some requests moot, others objectionable as vague or speculative, and some requiring amended responses.