Costello, Porter, Hill, Heisterkamp & Bushnell v. Providers Fidelity Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis
958 F.2d 836 · 1992
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc. (1996), White's Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer (1994)
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Foman v. Davis · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Schering Corporation v. Home Insurance Company
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]nder this policy, only limited circumstances justify a district court’s refusal to grant leave to amend pleadings; undue delay, bad faith on the part of the moving party, futility of the amendment or unfair prejudice to the opposing party.... This court will review the district court’s refusal to grant leave to amend under the abuse of discretion standard. Norbeck v. Davenport Community School District, 545 F.2d 63, 70 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 917 , 97 S.Ct. 2179 , 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Summary judgment is inappropriate until [the non-movant] has had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As indicated earlier, Providers’ proposed counterclaim is directly related to the same nucleus of operative facts growing out of the services upon which the plaintiffs claim is based. Further discovery will demonstrate whether there exists a genuine issue of fact as to the proffered defense to the claim stated, to wit, failure of consideration by reason of the alleged malpractice of plaintiffs counsel. If there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to the alleged malpractice, defendant acknowledges it may face rule 11 sanctions as well as encounter a final entry of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Permitting Providers to amend its answer to assert a compulsory counterclaim does not prejudice plaintiffs motion, whereas denying Providers leave to amend to assert a compulsory counterclaim and an opportunity to conduct discovery could well be prejudicial to the defendant. Thus, on remand, we hold that Providers should be allowed to move to amend its pleadings.”
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.