green
Positive treatment
25.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PROVENCHER v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC
As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded in a case where there was a nine- month delay: It is, rather, a case in which a court reasonably could have concluded . . . that the plaintiff was scrambling to devise “new theories of liability [ ] based on the same facts pled in his original complaint,” Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983); see Hayes, 602 F.2d at 20–theories that could and should have been put forward in a more timeous fashion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST v. TENPENNY
The facts that gave rise to the fraud claim were allegedly discovered during a title search and, therefore, the alleged fraud was a matter of public record for years before US Bank sought to this appears to be a case in which US Bank attempted “to devise ‘new theories of liability [] based on the same facts pled in [its] original complaint’—theories that could and should have been put forward in a more timeous fashion.” Nikitine, 715 F.3d at 391 (first alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. Johnson & Johnson
Damas, Inc., 769 F.3d 800, 802 (1st Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of motion to amend and finding that delay of more than two years was "'considerable'" and that plaintiff's explanation for the delay was inadequate) (citation omitted); Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983) (affirming denial of motion to amend more than two years after the filing of the original complaint where there was no justification for the delay); Hum.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Summer Infant (USA), Inc. v. TOMY International, Inc.
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johansen v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc.
Co., 715 F.3d 388, 391 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tutor Perini Corporation v. Banc of America Securities LLC
Reliance is usually a jury issue, unless the summary-judgment evidence “tips the scale only in one direction.” Kennedy v. Josephthal & Co., 814 F.2d 798, 804 (1st Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). 20 And the usual rule, not the exception, applies here. 21 Enough said on that. (2) Unsuitability Broadly speaking, an unsuitability claim requires that a plaintiff “show that the defendant is responsible for some misrepresentation or material omission,” see Lefkowitz v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., 804 F.2d 154, 155 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam), and that “the quality of’ the securities �…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nikitine v. Wilmington Trust Company
It is, rather, a case in which a court reasonably could have concluded-as the district court did — that the plaintiff was scrambling to devise “new theories of liability [] based on the same facts pled in his original complaint,” Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983); see Hayes, 602 F.2d at 20 -theo-ries that could and should have been put forward in a more timeous fashion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Berk
Although the First Circuit has held that excessive delay is a cause to deny a motion to amend an answer because of prejudicial concerns, See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) (citing Hayes v. New England Millwork Dist., Inc., 602 F.2d 15, 19 (1st Cir.1979)), no such concern exists here because the motion was made a mere six days after the original answer was filed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearce v. Duchesneau Group, Inc.
“In addition to the time, place, and person requirements under Rule 9(b), when alleging unsuitability the plaintiff must also ‘show that the quality of the stocks bought was inappropriate to his investment objectives.’ ” See, e.g., Alton v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 753 F.Supp. 39, 43 (D.Mass.1990) (quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1983)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferreira v. City of Pawtucket
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allendale Mutual Insurance v. Rutherford
See, e.g., Grant v. News Group Boston, Inc., 55 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1995) (delay of fourteen months); Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) (delay of two years). 5 Further, Defendant has offered her substitution of counsel as an explanation for the delay.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Guiliano v. Nations Title, Inc.
Demars v. General Dynamics Corp., 779 F.2d 95, 99 (1st Cir. 1985) (quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guiliano v. Nations Title, Inc.
Demars v. General ______ _______ Dynamics Corp., 779 F.2d 95, 99 (1st Cir. 1985) (quoting Tiernan ______________ _______ v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983). _____________________________ 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips v. Borough of Keyport
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In Tieman, the First Circuit held denial of leave to amend was proper, finding that a delay of over two years in seeking leave to amend his complaint without adequate justification for the delay “may well have affected defendants’ planned trial strategy and tactics.” Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
USA v. Kattar
The defendants oppose this attempted amendment on several grounds.3 Discussion According to Rule 1 5 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend shall be "freely given when justice so reguires." "That mandate is to be heeded," Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), and amendments should be liberally granted, see Tiernan v. Blvth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st defendant town of Meredith has assented to the plaintiff's reguest to amend its complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Glassman v. Computervision Corp.
Cf. Tientan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983) (finding prejudice even where additional discovery was not necessary; the additional claims "may well have affected defendants' planned trial strategy and tactics” and both defendants and the court would likely have “required additional time to prepare for trial”). 10 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Veal v. Memorial Hospital of Washington County
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983) (prejudice to defendant even where discovery need not be reopened; sufficient that allowance of amendment would affect defendant’s trial strategy and tactics).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. Conductron
The court finds that 4 the plaintiffs' proposed intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Howanski would not necessarily be futile under New Hampshire law.2 Consistent with the policy that amendments are to be liberally granted, Tiernan v. Blvth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983), the court grants the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to assert a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Howanski.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Young v. Conductron Corp.
The court finds that the plaintiffs’ proposed intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against How-anski would not necessarily be futile under New Hampshire law. 2 Consistent with the policy that amendments are to be liberally granted, Tieman v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983), the court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to assert a claim for the intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Howanski.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant v. News Group Boston, Inc.
Cf. Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983) (finding prejudice to party opposing late-filed motion to amend even where additional discovery was not necessary; the additional claims “may well have affected defendants’ planned trial strategy and tactics” and would likely have “required additional time to prepare for trial”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Grant v. News Group Boston
Cf. Tiernan v. Blyth, ___ _______ ______ Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1983) _______________________ (finding prejudice to party opposing late-filed motion to amend even where additional discovery was not necessary; the additional claims "may well have affected defendants' planned trial strategy and tactics" and would likely have "required additional time to prepare for trial").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pens. Plan Guide P 23907e Victor E. Carlo, Jr. And Kathleen M. Carlo v. Reed Rolled Thread Die Company
We will generally defer to a district court’s decision to deny leave to- amend where the reason is ‘apparent or declared.’ ” Demars v. General Dynamics Corp., 779 F.2d 95, 99 (1st Cir.1985) (quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983)). *793 Here, the Carlos’ Motion to Reconsider argued that their state law claims were rendered viable by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Pace v. Signal Technology Corp., 417 Mass. 154 , 628 N.E.2d 20, 22 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlo v. Reed Rolled
We _____________________ will generally defer to a district court's decision to deny leave to amend where the reason is 'apparent or declared.'" Demars v. ______ General Dynamics Corp., 779 F.2d 95, 99 (1st Cir. 1985)(quoting ______________________ Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. _______ _____________________________ 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carlo v. Reed Rolled
We will generally defer to a district court's decision to deny leave to amend where the reason is 'apparent or declared.'" Demars v. General Dynamics Corp., 779 F.2d 95, 99 (1st Cir. 1985)(quoting Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Picker International, Inc. v. Leavitt
See October 14, 1993, Tr. at 7-8; Kennedy v. Josephthal, Inc., 814 F.2d 798, 806 (1st Cir.1987) (upholding district court’s denial of leave to amend where summary judgment was under advisement and allowing amendment would have required, among other things, reopening discovery); Quaker State Oil Refining Corp. v. Garrity, 884 F.2d 1510, 1517 (1st Cir.1989) (affirming denial of motion to amend filed two months prior to end of discovery and three weeks prior to deadline for summary judgment motion); Serrano Medina v. United States, 709 F.2d 104, 106 (1st Cir.1983) (trial court did not abuse dis…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Devine v. Rhode Island
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. Banco Central
See generally Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cianchette v. Bank of New England, N.A. (In Re BWL, Inc.)
Cf. Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983) (even if based on the facts in the original complaint, an amendment can work prejudice by requiring a last minute change in trial strategy and tactics).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alton v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc.
In addition to the time, place, and person requirements under Rule 9(b), when alleging unsuitability the plaintiff must also “show that the quality of the stocks bought was inappropriate to his investment objectives.” Fieman v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1983) (emphasis original; footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shamsi v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
As shown by Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillan & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1983), several considerations must be taken in deciding who controls the level of trading in an account, Tiernan implies that where an inexperienced investor routinely follows the advice of his broker, the latter may be liable for churning notwithstanding that the client authorizes each transaction.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stillman v. North American Life & Casualty Co.
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hulex Music v. Santy
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Public Service Co. of NH v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
The decision to grant or deny a Rule 15(a) motion to amend lies within the sound discretion of the district court, Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983), and leave to amend is “freely given when justice so requires,” Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Merrimack Street Garage, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greenberg v. Mynczywor
The decision to grant or deny a Rule 15(a) motion to amend lies within the sound discretion of the district court, Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983), but within limits: it is mandated that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires,” Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dougherty v. Mieczkowski
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1983); Follansbee v. Davis, Skaggs & Co., 681 F.2d 673, 677 (9th Cir.1982); Nunes v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 635 F.Supp. 1391, 1394-95 (D.Md.1986).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bertram LEFKOWITZ, Etc., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SMITH BARNEY, HARRIS UPHAM & CO., INC., and Henry N. Fishburne, Defendants, Appellees
Appellant must demonstrate, therefore, that the quality of the securities purchased for Melnick’s account was inappropriate in light of Melnick’s investment objectives, fieman v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Investment & Development Corp. v. Cruz
As we have noted before, when “a considerable period of time has passed between the filing of the complaint and the motion to amend, courts have placed the burden upon the movant to show some valid reason for his neglect and delay.” Hayes v. New England Millwork Distributors, Inc., 602 F.2d 15, 19-20 (1st Cir.1979); Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Investment and Development Corporation v. Cruz
It further noted that a similar motion to amend had been denied six years earlier when the case was still in state court. 7 As we have noted before, when "a considerable period of time has passed between the filing of the complaint and the motion to amend, courts have placed the burden upon the movant to show some valid reason for his neglect and delay." Hayes v. New England Millwork Distributors, Inc., 602 F.2d 15, 19-20 (1st Cir.1979); Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
John T. Demars v. General Dynamics Corporation
We will generally defer to a district court’s decision to deny leave to amend where the reason is “apparent or declared.” Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kennedy v. Josephthal & Co., Inc.
Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Febus-Cruz v. Sauri-Santiago
See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983) (finding prejudice where additional discovery was not necessary and noting that additional claims “may well have affected defendants’ planned trial strategy and tactics” and would likely have “required additional time to prepare for trial”).
cited
Cited "see"
Madelux International, Inc. v. Barama Co.
See Tieman v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1 , 5 n. 5 (1st Cir.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Kenneth Craig Krull v. Securities and Exchange Commission
See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1983). 8 .
cited
Cited "see"
Rizek v. Securities & Exchange Commission
See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1983); see also, e.g., Craighead v. E.F.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rivera v. Clark Melvin Securities Corp.
See Xaphes, 632 F.Supp. at 483 (citing Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1983); Follansbee v. Davis, Skaggs & Co., Inc., 681 F.2d 673, 676 (9th Cir.1982)); see also O’Connor, 965 F.2d at 898 .
cited
Cited "see"
Rodriguez v. Banco Central
See generally ___ _________ Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st _______ ___________________________ Cir. 1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Raul F. Rodriguez v. Banco Central Corporation
See generally Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robert D. Morris v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Stotler and Company S. Bruce Pattison Stephen Greenfield, Intervenors
See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1 , 3-4 n. 2 (1st Cir.1983) ("even a sophisticated investor who blindly relinquishes all decisions to a broker may not be in control of his account.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Panto v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.
See Tiernan v. Blyth, Eastman, Dillon & Co., 719 F.2d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1983); see also Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 754 F.2d 1499, 1506 (9th Cir.1985) (plaintiffs given leave to amend to add ERISA claims upon dismissal of state law claims).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maureen HAMILTON, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. Hamilton, Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, Appellee
83-1358.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Sep 22, 1983.
Raymond J. Kenney, Jr., with whom Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy and Kenney was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant., Marianne B. Bowler, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., was on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Bownes, Ald-Rich, Cowen.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
We agree with the district court, 564 F.Supp. 1146, that the Feres doctrine bars this action. Under the facts, we cannot recognize a duty to follow up because this would mean creating continuous onsets of new causes of action extending beyond the period of active service.
Affirmed.