green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
40.4 score
“the liberal amendment rules of f.r.civ.p. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures. where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.”
Treatment trajectory · 1976 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1976
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Greer v. Fowler
where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend and not be granted.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ahbez v. Edwin H. Morris & Co., Inc.
liberal amendment rules of f.r.civ.p. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kovac v. Wray
the liberal amendment rules of f.r.civ.p. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures. where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States, ex rel; and State of Texas v. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Loyola University Medical Center, Southwest Transplant Alliance, LiveOnNY, New Jersey Sharing Network, United Network for Organ Sharing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States, ex rel; and State of Texas v. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Trinity Health's Loyola University Medical Center, Southwest Transplant Alliance, LiveOnNY, New Jersey Sharing Network, United Network for Organ Sharing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States, ex rel; and State of Texas v. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Loyola University Medical Center, Southwest Transplant Alliance, LiveOnNY, New Jersey Sharing Network, United Network for Organ Sharing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States, ex rel; and State of Texas v. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Trinity Health's Loyola University Medical Center, Southwest Transplant Alliance, LiveOnNY, New Jersey Sharing Network, United Network for Organ Sharing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States, ex rel; and State of Texas v. Parkland Health and Hospital System, Trinity Health's Loyola University Medical Center, Southwest Transplant Alliance, LiveOnNY, New Jersey Sharing Network, United Network for Organ Sharing
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tuyo Holdings, LLC, John Patrick Lowe, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Policy Services, LLC v. American General Life Insurance Company
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mealey v. City of Baton Rouge / Parish of East Baton Rouge
Tex. 2025) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608-09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America, ex rel. Family Clinic of New Albany, Inc. v. Chartspan Medical Technologies, Inc.
City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608-09 (Sth Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (Sth Cir. 1968); Collins v. Westlake Financial Servs., No. SA-25-CV-00021-JKP, 2025 WL 756205 , at *2 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McMillian v. The City of Aberdeen
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608-09 (Sth Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968); Collins v. Westlake Financial Servs., No. SA-25-CV-00021-JKP, 2025 WL 756205 , at *2 (W.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lone Star 24 HR ER Facility, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rux v. Smart
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608-09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (Sth Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lone Star 24 HR ER Facility, LLC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Collins v. Westlake Financial Services
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Francis v. Nelson
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lynk Media LLC v. IHeartMedia, Inc.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Global Weather Productions, LLC v. Joe Pags Media, LLC
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
De Leon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitfield v. American Express Company
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierce v. Kobach
“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.” Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Lab'ys, 630 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th Cir. 1980) (citing DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1969)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Compu-Link Corporation
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cocker v. Boomerang Capital Partners, LLC
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rennspies v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vallez v. Harding
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Montalvo v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marroquin v. Walmart, Inc.
Jackson v. Univ. of N. Tex., 673 F. App’x 384, 388 (per curiam) (quoting DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1968) (per curiam)). 18 Marucci Sports, 751 F.3d at 378 . 19 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 20 Quintanilla, 139 F.3d at 499 (quotation omitted); see SMH Enters. v. Krispy Krunchy Foods, L.L.C., No. CV 20- 2970, 2022 WL 497527 , at *3–4 (E.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
LONGORIA v. VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Germanson v. Midland Mortgage
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Shah v. Bank of America, N.A. as successors by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Hitt v. City of Pasade- na, 561 F.2d 606 , 608–09 (5th Cir. 1977); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bar Group, LLC v. Business Intelligence Advisors, Inc.
“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.” DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir. 1968), citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dexter Johnson v. William Stephens, Director
See In re Southmark Corp., 88 F.3d 311, 314-15 (5th Cir.1996);. see also DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968) (per curiam).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jaffer v. Standard Chartered Bank
P. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures.” DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc.
See Avatar Exploration, Inc. v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 933 F.2d 314, 321 (5th Cir.1991) (“We also affirm denials of motions to amend [under Rule 15(a) ] when amendment would be futile.”); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968) (per curiam) (“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend [under Rule 15(a) ] need not be granted.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Dallas Independent School District
Co., 234 F.3d 863 , 873 (5th Cir.2000) (“While this court has not specifically defined ‘futility’ in [the Rule 15(a)] context, we join our sister circuits that have interpreted it to mean that the amended complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968) (per curiam) (“Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend [under Rule 15(a) ] need not be granted.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Henneberry v. Sumitomo Corp. of America
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Because leave to amend a complaint will be denied if the amended complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss, see Halpert v. Wertheim & Co., 81 *433 F.R.D. 734, 735 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (“If the complaint, as amended, could not withstand a motion to dismiss, a motion to amend need not be granted.” (citing DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968))), the Court will review the amended complaint through the prism of a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and, consequently, accept as true all of the proposed complaint’s factual allegations, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plainti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Morial
After a responsive 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir. 1969) (finding pleading has been filed, the court should grant court need not amend when complaint fails to cure “leave” to amend “freely” “when justice so re- original, fatal defects). quires.” Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Fair Credit Ass'n v. United Credit National Bank
(2×)
In the Tenth Circuit, a proposed amendment should be denied as futile “ ‘[w]here a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal.’ ” Mountain View Pharmacy v. Abbott Laboratories, 630 F.2d 1383, 1389 (10th Cir.1980) (quoting DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Benedict v. Cooperstock
DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir.1968); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tidik v. Ritsema
DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (6th Cir.1968); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Willing v. Lake Orion Community Schools Board of Trustees
DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (6th Cir.1968); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Quality Refrigerated Services, Inc. v. City of Spencer
Dist., 545 F.2d 63 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 917 , 97 S.Ct. 2179 , 53 L.Ed.2d 227 (1977); NDK Corp. v. Local 1550 of the United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 709 F.2d 491, 493 (7th Cir.1983); Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 427 , 70 L.Ed.2d 236 (1981); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir.1968); Byrne v. Kysar, 347 F.2d 734, 736-37 (7th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 913 , 86 S.Ct. 902 , 15 L.Ed.2d 668 (1966); Jeffers v. Convoy Co., 650 F.Supp. 315, 317 (D.Minn.1986); Occhin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilson Group, Inc. v. Quorum Health Resources, Inc.
McDermott, Ltd. v. Moretz, 898 F.2d 418, 421 (4th Cir.1990) (upholding district court’s refusal to allow amendment asserting fraudulent misrepresentation counterclaim because it would have been subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fox v. Southern Railway Co.
Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted.” DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1969) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (in reviewing a motion for leave to amend, the court should consider as a factor the futility of the proposed amendment)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schepp v. Fremont County
E.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (futility of amendment adequate justification to refuse to grant leave to amend); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1989); Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir.1985); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968); see also 6 C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schepp v. Fremont County
E.g., Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) (futility of amendment adequate justification to refuse to grant leave to amend); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir.1989); Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265, 269 (7th Cir.1985); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1968); see also 6 C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brill v. Catfish Shaks of America, Inc.
See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962); Pan-Islamic Trade Corporation v. Exxon Corporation, 632 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir.1980); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 497 (5th Cir.1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Truehart v. Blandon
Id. at 432-33; see Pan-Islamic Trade Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 632 F.2d 539, 546 (5th Cir.1980) (leave “need not” be granted), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 927 , 102 S.Ct. 427 , 70 L.Ed.2d 236 (1981); DeLoach v. Woodley, 405 F.2d 496, 496-97 (5th Cir.1968) (same); see also Martin v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc., 801 F.2d 246, 248 (6th Cir.1986) (court "may" deny leave). 3 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Katherine DeLOACH, Appellant,
v.
Ralph E. WOODLEY, Appellee
v.
Ralph E. WOODLEY, Appellee
26330_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 22, 1969.
405 F.2d 496
Herbert Lord, Winchester, Mass., for appellant., William J. Gillespie, Gillespie & McClendon, Lubbock, Tex., for appellee.
Goldberg, Morgan, Lieb.
Cited by 118 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Texas (2) · S.D. New York (1)
PER CURIAM:
The jurisdictional derivative of this action is 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 which requires that the matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. We have ferreted the complaint for allegations supporting the jurisdictional amount and could find only the following: “The estimated sum which the plaintiff alleges the defendant owes her for the eleven (11) years support of her daughter, Kathryne, is Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Dollars ($7,860.00) with interest.” The fatal vulnerability of this allegation is obvious and dismissal was therefore properly decreed. Wood v. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering System Company Ltd., et al., 5 Cir. 1968, 409 F.2d 367 (December 4, 1968).
Appellant complains that a motion was made in the district court to amend her complaint and that leave to amend was denied. However, appellant’s proposed amendment alleged no new jurisdictional facts. As such her amended complaint would have been subject to dismissal for the same reasons as her original complaint. The liberal amend[*497] ment rules of F.R.Civ.P. 15(a) do not require that courts indulge in futile gestures. Where a complaint, as amended, would be subject to dismissal, leave to amend need not be granted. Foman v. Davis, 1962, 371 U.S. 178, 88 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed. 222, 226.
Affirmed.