Errington v. Missouri, 371 U.S. 3 (1962). · Go Syfert
Errington v. Missouri, 371 U.S. 3 (1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 46 Labs LLC v. Parler LLC (nvd, 2023-08-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962 1994 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) 46 Labs LLC v. Parler LLC
D. Nev. · 2023 · confidence medium
Pursuant to Rule 15(a), a court 25 should “freely” give leave to amend “when justice so requires,” and in the absence of a reason 26 such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 1 cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by 2 virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 3 178, 182 (1962). 4 III.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timmerman Starlite Trucking, Inc. v. Ingredion Incorporated
E.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
Rule 15(a)(2)’s mandate rests upon the notion that “[i]f 28 the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff 1 may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an 2 opportunity to test his claim on the merits.” Foman, 371 U.S. 3 at 182. 4 In light of Rule 15(a)’s text and purpose, the Ninth 5 Circuit has instructed that “[c]ourts may decline to grant leave 6 to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue delay, bad 7 faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated 8 failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, 9 undue pr…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prince George's County v. Collington Crossroads, Inc.
Md. · 1975 · confidence medium
Authority, 12 N.Y.2d 379 , 190 N.E.2d 402, 404-406 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 1 , appeal dismissed, 375 U. S. 78 , 84 S. Ct. 194 , 11 L.Ed.2d 141 , reh. denied, 375 U. S. 960 , 84 S. Ct. 440 , 11 L.Ed.2d 318 (1963); Cannata v. City of New York, 11 N.Y.2d 210 , 182 N.E.2d 395 , 227 N.Y.S.2d 903 , appeal dismissed, 371 U. S. 4 , 83 S. Ct. 28 , 9 L.Ed.2d 48 11962), with City of Little Kock v. Rames, 241 Ark. 1071 , 411 S.W.2d 486 (1967); Opinion of the Justices, 152 Me. 440 , 131 A. 2d 904 (1957); Opinion of the Justices, 332 Mass. 769 , 126 N.E.2d 795 (1955); Hogue v. Port of Seattle, 54 Wash. 2d 799 , 341 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ERRINGTON
v.
MISSOURI
No. 157.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
371 U.S. 3
Walter A. Raymond and Kenneth C. West for appellant.
Consideration, Took.
Published
Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.