Mertens v. Hummell’s Empirical Analysis
587 F.2d 862 · 1978
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 1993
9 federal appellate ·
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. · Klee v. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an apparent or declared reason-such 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, he may so amend at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The determination of the appropriateness of additional amended pleadings 'is within the discretion' of the trial court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (dictum), cited in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 401 U.S. 321 , 330, 91 S.Ct. 795, 802, 28 L.Ed.2d 77 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jafree v. Barber
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.