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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 73 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 Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stan Laber v. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army Anchor | green | “whether an amendment is prejudicial will often be determined by the nature of the amendment and its timing.” | 35 |
| 2 | Katyle v. Penn National Gaming, Inc. | green | “a district court may deny leave if amending the complaint would be futile-that is, if the proposed amended complaint fails to satisfy the requirements of the federal rules.” | 26 |
| 3 | LifeWise Family Financial v. Triangle Capital Corporation | green | “in recent years, we have made clear that district courts are free to deny leave to amend as futile if the complaint fails to withstand rule 12(b)(6) scrutiny.” | 12 |
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.