Rule 15, Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure

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

• Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.
  534 F.2d 566· 3d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 334×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the date of discovery of the claims, precluding summary judgment. The wrongful death claim should also be permitted to be amended.
• Paton v. la Prade
  524 F.2d 862· 3d Cir.· 1975-10-14 ·cited 139×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the FBI's maintenance of her file and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her damages claim, as factual issues remained regarding injury and the legality of the FBI's actions. The court also fou
• Thomasina Mack v. The Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., Inc.
  871 F.2d 179· 1st Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were untimely filed under Title VII because she failed to demonstrate a discriminatory act within the 240-day limitations period or sufficient grounds for equitable tolling.
• Vardaman S. Dunn v. Koehring Co.
  546 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 48×
  The court held that Koehring was liable to Hyde for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, affirming the trial court's finding with modifications to damages. The court reversed the lower court's finding that Koehring was not liable to Dunn, holding Koehring liable for abuse
• McKEEVER v. Israel
  689 F.2d 1315· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge disagrees with the majority's decision to reverse the dismissal and remand for appointment of counsel and reconsideration of other issues, arguing the majority erred in directing counsel appointment and in its approach to prisoner civil rights cases.
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• Wallin v. Fuller
  476 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 42×
  A trial court should permit amendment of pleadings to conform to issues actually tried by implied consent, even if those issues were not raised in the pretrial order.
• Rosell v. VMSB, LLC
  67 F.4th 1141· 11th Cir.· 2023-05-12 ·cited 41×
  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) only permits the dismissal of an entire action, not a single claim or part of an action, and an attempted partial dismissal does not create a final judgment for appellate review.
• Howie Ray Robinson v. Wade
  686 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 40×
  The Court held that the defendant's reprosecution was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the prosecutor's conduct, while improper, did not demonstrate an intent to provoke a mistrial, and the court reporter's negligence in losing a transcript did not trigger double jeop
• Kendall Sherman and Arthur Sherman, Jr. v. Hallbauer
  455 F.2d 1236· 5th Cir.· 1972-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment because the plaintiffs ultimately presented a viable contractual theory for their claim, which should have been allowed to proceed to trial.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Mims
  199 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1952-11-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that while an appeal from an order denying a new trial is generally unappealable, the court would consider the appeal if the intent to appeal the underlying judgment was clear from the record. The court affirmed the judgment.
• Fifty Assocs. v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  446 F.2d 1187· 9th Cir.· 1970-07-06 ·cited 39×
  The court clarified that its prior order did not mandate dismissal if jurisdiction could be established on remand, and that any jurisdiction found would apply retroactively.
• Cornell & Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Sec'y of Labor
  573 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1978-03-09 ·cited 38×
  The Commission abused its discretion by allowing the Secretary to amend the citation and complaint late in the proceedings, as this prejudiced the employer's ability to present its sole defense.
• Moser v. Tex. Trailer Corp.
  623 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 37×
  The court held that admiralty jurisdiction was proper and that the defendants' consent to an amendment alleging admiralty jurisdiction waived their right to a jury trial. However, Texas Trailer's failure to cover openings was not the proximate cause of the injury, and Crescent wa
• O'Brien v. Moriarty
  489 F.2d 941· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' confinement conditions, while restrictive, did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, and prison officials have broad discretion in managing security.
• Cita Tr. Co. AG v. Fifth Third Bank
  879 F.3d 1151· 11th Cir.· 2018-01-16 ·cited 34×
  Cita Trust Company AG sued Fifth Third Bank for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from Fifth Third's unauthorized transfer of $428 million in bonds held in custody. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under a one-year contract
• Shah v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  797 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a claim for substantive due process violation is not barred by the availability of state remedies, and that a municipal liability claim based on alleged policy or custom cannot be dismissed on the pleadings alone.
• Associated Home Builders OF the Greater E. BAY, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  352 F.2d 745· 9th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Board erred in failing to consider whether the unions' unilateral imposition of production quotas and fines constituted a failure to bargain collectively under §§ 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act, even though these sections were not explicitly cited in the comp
• Ailshire v. Darnell
  508 F.2d 526· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-31 ·cited 24×
  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.
• Grandey v. Pac. Indem. Co.
  217 F.2d 27· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-24 ·cited 24×
  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.
• Serv. Merchandise Co., Inc. v. The Boyd Corp.
  722 F.2d 945· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-12 ·cited 22×
  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
• AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Hillman
  796 F.2d 770· 5th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 21×
  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.
• In re Scott
  709 F.2d 717· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 20×
  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.
• Cleveland Consol., Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n & Raymond J. Donovan
  649 F.2d 1160· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 20×
  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'.
• Mattel, Inc. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc.
  353 F.2d 421· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 20×
  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.
• Spicer v. Hilton
  618 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 19×
  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.
• Gladhill v. Gen. Motors Corp. & Rockmont Motor Co.
  743 F.2d 1049· 4th Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 18×
  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.
• Engel v. Teleprompter Corp.
  732 F.2d 1238· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-25 ·cited 17×
  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.
• McGEORGE v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc.
  871 F.2d 952· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 16×
  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.
• Gilmore v. Shearson/American Express Inc.
  811 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 15×
  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×
  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.
• W. Martin Haskell, M.D. v. Wash. Twp.
  864 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the defendants waived their statute of limitations defense by failing to raise it in their initial responsive pleading. The court also found that the district court's rulings on standing were conflicting and that the Rule 41(b) dismissal was subject to a clear
• The Wealden Corp. & Edward G. Uhl v. Schwey
  482 F.2d 550· 5th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its factual determinations, its denial of the Rule 41(b) motion, or its rulings on amendments to pleadings and counterclaims.
• Drake v. City OF Fort Collins
  927 F.2d 1156· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate impact and failed to show pretext for disparate treatment under Title VII, and affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Kernal Records Oy v. Mosley
  794 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2011-06-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that posting a work on the Internet constitutes publication and that such publication is simultaneous worldwide, making the work a 'United States work' subject to registration requirements under the Copyright Act.
• Anderson v. Usair, Inc.
  818 F.2d 49· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there is no implied private right of action under section 404(a) of the Federal Aviation Act for individuals to sue air carriers for violations of the duty to provide safe and adequate service. Furthermore, the court found no state action for constitutional cl
• Porter v. Beaumont Enter. & Journal
  743 F.2d 269· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the Title VII race discrimination suit with prejudice due to the plaintiff's attorney's inexcusable delay and improper service of process.
• Lemmon v. Cedar Point
  406 F.2d 94· 6th Cir.· 1969-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a stock option agreement provision allowing termination of employment does not permit arbitrary discharge to evade stock option obligations, and dismissal of the claim was improper.
• Stepp v. United States
  207 F.2d 909· 4th Cir.· 1953-11-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the intentional use of excessive force by a government employee in making an arrest, resulting in death, constitutes an assault and battery barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that allowing an amended answer to raise this defense was not an abuse of dis
• Odishelidze v. AETNA Life & Cas. Co.
  853 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1988-08-03 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend jurisdictional allegations, but affirmed the dismissal of the federal antitrust and RICO claims.
• Faser v. Sears
  674 F.2d 856· 11th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the claim against Sears and that the district court properly denied the motion to amend to add Dr. Fishman, but erred in denying Dr. Fishman and Upjohn's motions for summary judgment as moot.
• A.E. & R.R. v. Mitchell
  724 F.2d 864· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint for a fourth time, as it would have introduced new claims and parties after significant delay.
• Young C. Park v. Didden
  695 F.2d 626· D.C. Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 10×
  A district court must conduct a careful, practical analysis under Rule 19 before dismissing an action for failure to join parties, and cannot dismiss based on conclusory labels like 'necessary' or 'indispensable' without such analysis.
• Milbert v. Koop
  830 F.2d 354· D.C. Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 9×
  The court held that commissioned officers of the Public Health Service (PHS) are not subject to the 'military exception' that bars active members of the armed forces from suing under Title VII and, by extension, the Rehabilitation Act.
• Amella v. United States
  732 F.2d 711· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 9×
  Service of a libel on the United States must be made "forthwith" as required by statute, and a 63-day delay is not considered "forthwith," leading to dismissal.
• Wakefield v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  769 F.2d 109· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the breach of contract claim were erroneous, requiring a new trial, and that the age discrimination claim should have been dismissed with prejudice.
• Emerson G.M. Diesel, Inc. v. Alaskan Enter.
  732 F.2d 1468· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff in admiralty can recover purely economic losses under a strict liability theory, and that a party can elect to proceed in admiralty without a jury even if the other party objects.
• Ross v. Mebane
  536 F.2d 1199· 7th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims challenging the fact or duration of confinement, including the deprivation of good time credits, are not moot and should be considered via habeas corpus, even if the prisoner has been transferred. Claims for injunctive relief against future punishment a
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Consol. Mortg. & Fin. Corp.
  805 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations applies to commercial loans and that Consolidated's acknowledgments of debt prevented the statute from barring the FDIC's claims. However, Suro's liability as a guarantor requires further factual development.
• Smith v. Smith
  955 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 1998-11-17 ·cited 6×