G. A. Buder, Iii v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
644 F.2d 690 · 1981
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC (1998), Data Access Systems Securities Litigation Tolins Lowenfels Kahlowsky and Co (1988)
39 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
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 · Texas v. Louisiana · White v. United States · Vanderboom v. Sexton · Klein v. Bower
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [district] court placed great reliance on the two and one-half year delay between the filing of the complaint and plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend. However, it is well-settled that delay alone is not a sufficient reason for denying leave. See Mercantile Trust Co. Nat’l Ass’n v. inland Marine Products Corp., 542 F.2d 1010 , 1012 (8th Cir. 1976). The delay must have resulted in prejudice to the party opposing the motion. See Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Corp., 562 F.2d 537 (8th Cir. 1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In the absence of any 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. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.” Of course, the grant or denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not only the subjective judgment of the defrauded party that is relevant. Commencement of the period is also tested by an objective standard of reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff in discovering the fraud.”
1 later decision 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.