Forstmann v. Culp’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (1992), 866 F. Supp. 1191 - Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa (1994)
4 federal appellate · 9 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Wingo v. Wedding · Lehman Bros. v. Lilly · Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party who attempts to file a motion to amend after the date specified in the pretrial scheduling order must demonstrate that there is some ‘good cause’ why the court should not adhere to the timetable specified in the scheduling order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b). As explained in the Notes of the Advisory Committee on Rules, the party seeking to file the untimely amendment must demonstrate ‘good cause’ why the timetable ‘cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.’ ... A court’s evaluation of good cause is not coextensive with an inquiry into the propriety of the amendment under case law interpreting Rule 15. Plaintiffs’ citation to the liberality afforded motions to amend under Rule 15 thus fails to demonstrate ‘good cause’ under Rule 16(b). (original emphasis)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(b) [The district court] ... shall, after consulting with the attorneys for the parties and any unrepresented parties, by a scheduling conference, ... enter a scheduling order that limits the time (1) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings; (2) to file and hear motions; and (3) to complete discovery. The order shall issue as soon as practicable but in no event more than 120 days after filing of the complaint. A schedule shall not be modified except by leave of ... [the district court] upon a showing of good cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A party who requests leave to amend after the date specified in the initial scheduling order must satisfy two prerequisites. The party must first demonstrate that there is some “good cause” why the court should not adhere to the dates specified in the scheduling order. If the party shows “good cause” to the court’s satisfaction, the party must then demonstrate that leave to amend is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.