Freeman v. First Union National (2003)
green
· 55 citation events
across 13 courts.
Showing the 29 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Gregory Bartko v. John Earles (2024)
Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
Lana Patrick v. Pasco County Florida Tax Collector (2026)
Whitesell Corp. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 154 USCA11 Case: 25-14234 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/16/2026 Page: 10 of 19 10 Opinion of the Court 25- 14234 F.4th 1289 , 1293 (11th Cir. 2025); Freeman v. First Union Nat’l., 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
De'Carlos Bobby Butler v. State of Georgia (2022)
Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Jerry Wayne Gaddy (2020)
But where the lower court denies leave to amend based on futility of the proposed amendment, we review that decision de novo because it is a “conclu[sion] that as a matter of law an amended complaint would necessarily fail.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Freeman 7 Case: 19-11699 Date Filed: 09/29/2020 Page: 8 of 18 v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003)).
green
Craig Bassett v. Governor of Florida (2019)
Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
Chris Payne v. DOCO Credit Union (2018)
“Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quotations omitted) Although we typically review the denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion, “when the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend due to futility, we review the denial de novo because [the district court] is concluding that as a matter of law an amended complaint ‘woul…
citation omitted
green
K.A. v. Renee Waters (2011)
Freeman, 329 F.3d at 1235.
green
Andrzej Madura v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2009)
Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
Bravo v. United States (2008)
Freeman v. First Union Nat'l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
Freeman v. First Union Nat. Bank (2004)
Freeman v. First Union Nat'l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.2003).
green
600 Cleveland, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. (2026)
I must “decide novel questions of state law ‘the way it appears the state’s highest court would.’ ” Freeman v. First Union Nat., 329 F.3d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 , 1290 (11th Cir. 2001)).
per curiam
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Neverve LLC (2023)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231 , 1233–34 (11th Cir. 2003).
green
A.W. v. Jennifer Box (2018)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003) (analyzing whether leave to amend should have been granted under Rule 15 even though the defect at issue implicated Article III standing); see also In re Engle Cases, 767 F.3d 1082 , 1108 n.30 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he Rule 17 and Rule 15 issues 8 Case: 18-10534 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 9 of 10 presented are procedural and do not require us to pass judgment on the merits of the underlying claims.”).
analyzing whether leave to amend should have been granted under Rule 15 even though the defect at issue implicated Article III standing
See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 , 127 S.Ct. 1184, 1192 , 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) ("[A] federal court has leeway ‘to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.’ ” (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 , 119 S.Ct. 1563, 1570 , 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999))); see also Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231 , 1234 (11th Cir.2003) (analyzing whether leave to amend should have been grant…
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1233-34 (11th Cir.2003) (certifying Florida UFTA question to Florida Supreme Court because district court exercised diversity jurisdiction).
green
Eberhard v. Marcu (2008)
See, e.g., Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1233-34 (11th Cir.2003) (certifying to Supreme Court of Florida the question of whether Florida law supports a claim by plaintiffs, including a federal receiver, for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer); Scholes, 56 F.3d at 753 (“The law under which the receiver proceeded is the Illinois law of fraudulent conveyances as it stood in 1989.”).
green
Eberhard v. Marcu (2008)
See, e.g., Freeman v. 11 First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1233-34 (11th Cir. 2003) (certifying to Supreme Court of 12 Florida the question of whether Florida law supports a claim by plaintiffs, including a federal 13 receiver, for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer); Scholes, 56 F.3d at 753 (“The law under 14 which the receiver proceeded is the Illinois law of fraudulent conveyances as it stood in 1989.”). 15 In fact, some federal receivers have enjoyed the benefit o…
certifying to Supreme Court of 12 Florida the question of whether Florida law supports a claim by plaintiffs, including a federal 13 receiver, for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer
green
Dfs Secured Healthcare Receivables Trust v. Caregivers Great Lakes, Inc. And Marc Leestma (2004)
See, e.g., Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Hansard Construction Corp. v. Rite Aid of Florida, Inc., 783 So.2d 307 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001) (“Despite the fact that the other remedies set forth in the Act are equitable in nature, we find this catchall provision sufficiently broad to encompass the monetary judgment sought by appellants.”)); Morris v. Askeland Enters., Inc., 17 P.3d 830, 833 (Col.Ct.App.2000) (“[A] court acting in equity a…
green
Georgia Receivables v. Caregivers Great Lak (2004)
See, e.g., Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Hansard Construction Corp. v. Rite Aid of Florida, Inc., 783 So.2d 308 (Fla. Dist.
citing Hansard Construction Corp. v. Rite Aid of Florida, Inc., 783 So.2d 308 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001
green
In Re Adams Golf, Inc. Securities Litigation (2004)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231 , 1234 (11th Cir.2003) ("[W]hen the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend due to futility, we review the denial de novo because it is concluding that as a matter of law an amended complaint 'would necessarily fail.' ” (quoting St.
green
In Re: Adams Golf, Inc. Securities Litigation F. Kenneth Shockley, M.D. David Shockley Todd Tonore Zane Biana… (2004)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat'l, 329 F.3d 1231 , 1234 (11th Cir.2003) ("[W]hen the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend due to futility, we review the denial de novo because it is concluding that as a matter of law an amended complaint `would necessarily fail.'" (quoting St.
As the United States Supreme Court has held, “[t]he rule that subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought, does not suggest a different interpretation . . . when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine jurisdiction.” Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 , 473–74 (2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted); …
green
Tiara Condominium Ass'n v. Marsh, USA, Inc. (2014)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.2003).
green
United States v. Menotte (2012)
See In re Venice-Oxford Assocs., 236 B.R. 820, 834 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1999) (analyzing transfers under Fla. Stat. § 726.105 and § 726.106 contemporaneously with 11 USC § 548 ); see also Freeman v. First Union Nat., 329 F.3d 1231 , 1233 (11th Cir.2003).
green
Pease v. MAIN TURBO SYSTEMS (2011)
When the state’s highest court has not addressed the issue, the federal court must predict its holding.” Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 960 F.2d 327, 331 (3d Cir.1992) (internal citations omitted); see also Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, 329 F.3d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir.2003) (“We decide novel questions of state law ‘the way it appears the state’s highest court would.’”) (quoting Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 , 1290 (11th Cir.2001)).
green
Laddin Ex Rel. Liquidating Trust of the Estate of Verilink Corp. v. Powell Goldstein, LLP (In Re Verilink Cor… (2009)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat’l, *701 329 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.2003).
green
United States v. Sensient Colors, Inc. (2009)
See Freeman v. First Union Nat'l, 329 F.3d 1231 , 1234 (11th Cir.2003) (”[W]hen the district court denies the plaintiff leave to amend due to futility, we review the denial de novo because it is concluding that as a matter of law an amended complaint ‘would necessarily fail.’ ”); American Ins.
green
North Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC v. Krig (2009)
Accordingly, the Court must determine this novel state law issue, unaddressed by the Florida intermediate appellate courts, “the way it appears the state’s highest court would.” See Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 , 1290 (11th Cir.1991); see also Freeman v. First Union Nat., 329 F.3d 1231 , 1232 (11th Cir.2003) (“A lack of explicit Florida case law on an issue does not absolve us of our duty to decide what the state courts would hold if faced with it.…