Georgia v. United States, 371 U.S. 9 (1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Georgia v. United States, 371 U.S. 9 (1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Cress v. Nexo Capital Inc. (cand, 2025-10-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) John Cress v. Nexo Capital Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ass’n of Retired 8 Emps. v. Sonoma Cnty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 9 178, 182 (1962)). 10 IV.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Engelbrecht v. County of Placer
E.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 9 178, 182 (1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Teed v. Chen
N.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
A court has discretion to deny leave to amend due to 5 “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to 6 cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party 7 by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Leadsinger, Inc. 8 v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 9 178, 182 (1962)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Driscoll's, Inc. v. California Berry Cultivars, LLC
E.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 9 178, 182 (1962); Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973); see also Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mueller v. Car Wash Partners Incorporated
D. Ariz. · 2021 · confidence medium
In determining whether to grant leave to amend under 4 Rule 15(a)(2), the Court considers whether there has been “‘undue delay, bad faith or 5 dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by 6 amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of 7 allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.’” Eminence Capital, LLC v. 8 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Foman, 371 U.S. 9 at 182). 10 B.
discussed Cited "see" Kim v. Allakos Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 9 178, 182 (1962). “[T]he consideration of prejudice to the opposing party…carries the greatest 10 weight.” Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.2003).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
GEORGIA ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
114.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
371 U.S. 9
Per Curiam.
Published
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

Eugene Cook, Attorney General of Georgia, and Paul Rodgers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.