Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,131’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 191 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd v. Rascator Maritime Sa a, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,143 (1979)
1 federal appellate · 17 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Hall v. Cole · F. D. Rich Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Industrial Lumber Co.
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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although leave to amend pleadings should be freely given when justice requires, the trial judge’s discretion is broad and its sound exercise usually depends on the presence or absence of such factors as ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.’ [Citations.] In a motion under rule 15(b) to amend the complaint to conform to the proof, the most important question is whether the new issues were tried by the parties’ express or implied consent and whether the defendant ‘would be prejudiced by the implied amendment, i.e., whether he had a fair opportunity to defend and whether he could offer any additional evidence if the case were to be retried on a different theory.’ 3 Moore’s Federal Practice para 15.13[2], at 993 (2d ed. 1966) [Citations.]. The purpose of Rule 15(b) is to allow the pleadings to conform to issues actually tried, not to extend the pleadings to introduce issues inferentially suggested by incidental evidence in the record. [Citations.] * * * ” Browning Debenture Holders’ Committee v. Dasa Corporation, 560 F.2d 1078, 1086 (2nd Cir.1977).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An action is brought in bad faith when the claim is entirely without color and has been asserted wantonly, for purposes of harassment or delay, or for other improper reasons. Otherwise those with colorable, albeit novel, legal claims would be deterred from testing those claims in a federal court.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The purpose of Rule 15(b) is to allow the pleadings to conform to issues actually tried, not to extend the pleadings to introduce issues inferentially suggested by incidental evidence in the record.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.