Topic: it would be grossly unfair to allow a plaintiff to go to th… · Go Syfert
← All topics

Topic #10469

4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 45 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, Appellant in 88-1781 v. ERNST & WHINNEY; BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, v. ERNST & WHINNEY, Appellant in 88-1828.

#Case FlagCanonical passage Citers
1 BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, Appellant in 88-1781 v. ERNST & WHINNEY; BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, v. ERNST & WHINNEY, Appellant in 88-1828 Anchor
ca3 · 1989
green “it would be grossly unfair to allow a plaintiff to go to the expense of trying a case only to be met by a new defense after trial.” 13
2 William H. Grant v. Preferred Research, Inc., a Georgia Corporation
ca11 · 1989
green “the supreme court has held that the purpose of rule 8(c) is to give the opposing party notice of the affirmative defense and a chance to rebut it.” 13
3 Cito v. Bridgewater Township Police Department
ca3 · 1989
green “when reviewing a rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, we must determine whether the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations.” 11
4 BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, Appellant in 88-1781 v. ERNST & WHINNEY; BRADFORD-WHITE CORPORATION, v. ERNST & WHINNEY, Appellant in 88-1828
ca3 · 1989
green “it did not file a motion or present argument before the district court on the statute of limitations issue at any time before or at the trial.” 8

A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.

← Caselaw search · Hot / Trending / Newly red · Brief Check