Dorn v. The State Bank Of Stella, 767 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Dorn v. The State Bank Of Stella, 767 F.2d 442 (8th Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 1997–2024 · 2 courts · …different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal. at p. 443 ✓ Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2008–2020 · 3 courts · …although a pretrial motion for leave to amend one's complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal. at p. 443 ✓ Topic ↗
90 citation events (50 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Turville v. J & J Properties, L.C. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Utah Ct. App. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
assuming that in present circumstances the district court had authority to grant leave to amend, its refusal to do so would be reversed only for abuse of discretion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Joshua Close v. City of Bellevue Iowa
8th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
And the rest “added little, if any, . . . substance to the original complaint.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Andrew Taylor Thompson v. Pioneer Bank & Trust
D.S.D. · 2026 · confidence medium
Leave to amend after a judgment of dismissal “will be granted if it is consistent with the stringent standards governing the grant of Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) relief.” Id. at 743 (citing Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir. 1985)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. DOC
D.S.D. · 2024 · confidence medium
But “different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir 1985) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Huff v. City of Brookings Police Department
D.S.D. · 2024 · confidence medium
But “different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir 1985) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Schurman v. Payer
D.S.D. · 2023 · confidence medium
But “different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir 1985) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Kraft v. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
D.S.D. · 2021 · confidence medium
State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kraft v. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
D.S.D. · 2021 · confidence medium
“Although a pretrial - motion for leave to amend one’s complaint is liberally granted, different considerations apply after □□ dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). [After a court dismisses a complaint, a party’s right to amend under Rule 15 terminates.” Geier v. Missouri Ethics Comm’n, 715 F.3d 674, 677 (8th Cir. 2013).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilmes v. Packsize, LLC
E.D. Mo. · 2021 · confidence medium
After a complaint has been dismissed, “the right to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) terminates.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Abernathy v. White
E.D. Mo. · 2020 · confidence medium
“Although a pretrial motion for leave to amend one’s complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted). “[I]nterests of finality dictate that leave to amend should be less freely available after a final order has been entered.” U.S. ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fox v. State of South Dakota
D.S.D. · 2018 · confidence medium
P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”); Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint three months after final judgment).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mountain Home Flight Service, Inc. v. Baxter County
8th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gerald Geier v. Missouri Ethics Commission (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
And while amendments to a party’s complaint should be liberally granted, “different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waterman v. GCC Alliance Concrete, Inc.
N.D. Iowa · 2011 · confidence medium
Morgan Chase Bank, 591 F.3d 1043, 1050 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985)): “After a complaint is dismissed, the right to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) terminates.” [Dorn, 767 F.2d at 443 .] “Although a party may still file a motion for leave to amend and amendments should be granted liberally, such a motion would be inappropriate if the court has clearly indicated either that no amendment is possible or that dismissal of the complaint also constitutes dismissal of the action.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Iowa Ready-Mix Concrete Antitrust Litigation
N.D. Iowa · 2011 · confidence medium
Morgan Chase Bank, 591 F.3d 1043, 1050 (8th Cir.2010) (quoting Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985)): "After a complaint is dismissed, the right to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) terminates." [ Dorn, 767 F.2d at 443 .] "Although a party may still file a motion for leave to amend and amendments should be granted liberally, such a motion would be inappropriate if the court has clearly indicated either that no amendment is possible or that dismissal of the complaint also constitutes dismissal of the action." Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matthew Hawks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
We will construe Hawks's June 30, 2008 motion as a request to amend his complaint, as the motion asks the district court to "reconsider the Order and allow him to amend his pleading with regard to the claim of discrimination based on sex." We have recognized that "[a]lthough a pretrial motion for leave to amend one's complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal." Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (2×) also: Cited "see"
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
We will construe Hawks’s June 30, 2008 motion as a request to amend his complaint, as the motion asks the district court to “reconsider the Order and allow him to amend his pleading with regard to the claim of discrimination based on sex.” We have recognized that “Although a pretrial motion for leave to amend one’s complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McDowell v. CITICORP INC.
S.D. · 2008 · confidence medium
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “[a]lthough a pretrial motion for leave to amend one’s complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8thCir.1985) (emphasis added). 5 If a complaint is dismissed, “the right to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) [SDCL 15-6-15(a)] terminates.” Id. (additional citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Steven C. Curtiss v. Charles Higgins
8th Cir. · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Corp. v. Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., 361 F.3d 465, 473 (8th Cir.2004) (noting the well-settled rule that documents presented for the first time on appeal are generally not considered part of the record for review by the appellate court); cf. Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam) (stating the dismissal of an action ordinarily terminates the right to amend the complaint).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation
D. Minnesota · 2004 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985) ("After a complaint is dismissed, the right to amend under [Rule] 15(a) terminates.”). 3 .Plaintiffs provided two cites supporting their original request: In re K-tel Int’l, 300 F.3d 881, 899 , 910 n. 23 (8th Cir.2003) and Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-53 (9th Cir.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ruckle v. Anchorage School District
Alaska · 2004 · confidence medium
Id. at 229-30 (citing Brever v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 40 F.3d 1119 , 1131 (10th Cir.1994); Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384 (1st Cir.1994); Whitaker v. City of Houston, Tex., 963 F.2d 831, 835 (5th Cir.1992); Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985); Czeremcha v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 724 F.2d 1552, 1556 (11th Cir.1984); Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 , 448 n. 1 (2d Cir.1978)). 31 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. Community Care Fellowship
6th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Newark Branch, NAACP v. Town of Harrison, 907 F.2d 1408, 1417 (3d Cir.1990); Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Union Corp.
E.D. Pa. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 388 (1st Cir.) (citing Jackson v. Salon, 614 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir.1980)) (“[A] plaintiffs time to amend his or her complaint as a matter of right ... terminates upon a district court’s dismissal of the complaint.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994); McDonald v. Hall, 579 F.2d 120 , 121 & n. 5 (1st Cir.1978) (per curiam) (stating that Rule 15(a) allows a party to amend “at any time prior to the court’s acting on the motion” to dismiss); Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 , 448 n…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Briehl v. General Motors Corporation
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frederick Briehl v. General Motors
8th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re General Motors Corp. Anti-lock Brake Products Liability Litigation
E.D. Mo. · 1997 · confidence medium
Although leave to amend a complaint should be granted liberally when the motion is made pretrial, “different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir. 1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. Condon
N.D. Iowa · 1996 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 442-43 (8th Cir.1985) (outright dismissal is not inappropriate, and amendment of complaint is inappropriate “if the court has clearly indicated either that no amendment is possible or that dismissal of the complaint also constitutes dismissal of the action,” quoting Czeremcha v. International Association of Machinists and Aero *1520 space Workers, 724 F.2d 1552 , 1556 n. 6 (11th Cir.1984)). c.
examined Cited as authority (rule) DeWit v. Firstar Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Iowa · 1995 · confidence medium
Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that following dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), denial of leave to amend may be “entirely proper.” Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sandra Humphreys Marion Paul Humphreys, Jr. v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. Anna Jo Mixon William D. Crump, M.D.
8th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Claude Whitaker v. City of Houston, Texas
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 , 448 n. 1 (2nd Cir.1978); and Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985). 15 . 724 F.2d at 1554-56. 16 . 335 F.2d 153 , 158 n. 12 (5th Cir.1964). 17 . 334 F.2d 147 , 150 n. 4 (5th Cir.1964). 18 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitaker v. City of Houston, Tex.
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Miller, and Mary Kay Kane, 6 Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1475, at 554–556 (2nd ed 1990 and 1992 Supp). 13 See, e.g., Firchau v. Diamond National Corp., 345 F.2d 269 , 270–71 (9th Cir.1965). 14 Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Indus., Inc., 590 F.2d 445 , 448 n. 1 (2nd Cir.1978); and Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985). 15 724 F.2d at 1554–56. 16 335 F.2d 153 , 158 n. 12 (5th Cir.1964). 17 334 F.2d 147 , 150 n. 4 (5th Cir.1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hopi Tribe v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1990 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985); Czeremcha v. Intern.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rogers v. Furlow
D. Minnesota · 1989 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Niagara Of Wisconsin Paper Corporation v. The Paper Industry Union-Management Pension Fund
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Niagara of Wisconsin Paper Corp. v. Paper Industry Union-Management Pension Fund
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barbara Quartana v. John D. Utterback D/B/A All Star Dairy Association, Inc.
8th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Barber v. Frakes
D. Neb. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir. 1985); Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 389 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Muhammad v. Frakes
D. Neb. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir. 1985); Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 389 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Mask of Ka-Nefer-Nefer (2×)
8th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir.1985); Acevedo-Villalobos v. Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 389 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1015 , 115 S.Ct. 574 , 130 L.Ed.2d 490 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Lema v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.
D. Maryland · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442, 443 (8th Cir.1985); 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
cited Cited "see" Kurkowski v. Volcker
8th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442 (8th Cir.1985); Kurkowski v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 750 F.2d 723 (8th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" Kurkowski v. Volcker
8th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dorn v. State Bank of Stella, 767 F.2d 442 (8th Cir.1985); Kurkowski v. Federal Land Bank of Omaha, 750 F.2d 723 (8th Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
George J. Dorn
v.
The State Bank of Stella, a Corporation Richard McMullen Andrew McMullen Jasmine McMullen the Travelers Insurance Company Edward L. Bischoff Alan Loftis George Nelson and R.L. Buzard
85-1073.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jul 5, 1985.
767 F.2d 442
Cited by 44 opinions  |  Published

767 F.2d 442

George J. DORN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE BANK OF STELLA, a corporation; Richard McMullen;
Andrew McMullen; Jasmine McMullen; The Travelers Insurance
Company; Edward L. Bischoff; Alan Loftis; George Nelson;
and R.L. Buzard, Appellees.

No. 85-1073.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 1985.
Decided July 5, 1985.

George J. Dorn, pro se.

John P. Heil, Omaha, Neb., for appellee State Bank of Stella.

Gregory W. Searson, Omaha, Neb., for appellee Travelers, et al.

Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

[*~442]1

George J. Dorn appeals pro se from the district court's[1] denial of his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Dorn initially brought this action against The State Bank of Stella (State Bank), The Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers), and several of its officers seeking to avoid all mortgages, liens, judgments and security interests Travelers and State Bank hold on his property; recoupment of all interest and finance charges paid to them; and actual and punitive damages. Dorn contends, inter alia, that State Bank and Travelers violated the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1601 et seq., and numerous other statutory and constitutional provisions. We affirm.

2

The district court dismissed Dorn's initial complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on August 24, 1984. On September 6, 1984 Dorn filed a motion to vacate judgment which the court denied on September 7. Dorn did not appeal.

3

On November 21, 1984 Dorn filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Dorn, in his amended complaint, incorporated much of the language from his earlier complaint and cited additional statutes and constitutional amendments as bases for jurisdiction. He also attached to the complaint additional exhibits of earlier loan transactions with State Bank.

[*~443]4

The district court's denial of Dorn's motion for leave to file an amended complaint was entirely proper. Dorn did not file his motion until approximately three months after the district court entered its judgment of dismissal. Although a pretrial motion for leave to amend one's complaint is to be liberally granted, different considerations apply to motions filed after dismissal. See, e.g., Wright v. Anthony, 733 F.2d 575, 577 (8th Cir.1984); Hinton v. CPC International, Inc., 520 F.2d 1312, 1314 (8th Cir.1975). After a complaint is dismissed, the right to amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) terminates. Czeremcha v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 724 F.2d 1552, 1556 (11th Cir.1984). Although a party may still file a motion for leave to amend and amendments should be granted liberally, such a motion would be inappropriate "if the court has clearly indicated either that no amendment is possible or that dismissal of the complaint also constitutes dismissal of the action." Czeremcha, 724 F.2d at 1556, n. 6. Here, the district court's order of August 24, 1984 dismissed the complaint on its merits and did not grant Dorn leave to amend.

[*444]5

It is possible, of course, to give relief from a final judgment of dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), but where, as here, the motion for leave fell short of meeting the requirements of that rule in any real sense, and where, as here, the amended complaint added little, if any, of substance to the original complaint, it was not error for the district court to deny leave to amend three months after final judgment. Assuming that in present circumstances the district court had authority to grant leave to amend, its refusal to do so would be reversed only for abuse of discretion. See Holloway v. Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam), and cases there cited. We find no such abuse here.

[*~443]6

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

The Honorable C. Arlen Beam, United States District Judge, District of Nebraska