Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commerce Benefits Group, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. Anchor | green | “but a court choosing to modify the schedule upon a showing of good cause, may do so only 'if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” | 4 |
| 2 | United States ex rel. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Nelson, Inc. | green | “because the court finds no good cause to amend the scheduling order under rule 16(b), it will not address whether leave to amend is appropriate under rule 15(a).” | 3 |
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.