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.
14 canonical passages across 14 cases, quoted by 3,350 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 Foman v. Davis.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foman v. Davis Anchor | green | “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” | 2,936 |
| 2 | James Madison Limited, by Norman F. Hecht, Sr., Assignee v. Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency | green | “courts may deny a motion to amend a complaint as futile . . . if the proposed claim would not survive a motion to dismiss.” | 122 |
| 3 | Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. Firestone | green | “it is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason.” | 92 |
| 4 | In Re Interbank Funding Corp. SEC. Litigation | green | “a district court may properly deny a motion to amend if the amended pleading would not survive a motion to dismiss.” | 52 |
| 5 | Brinson v. McKeeman | green | “it is malicious per se for a pauper to file successive in forma pauperis suits that duplicate claims made in other pending or previous lawsuits.” | 46 |
| 6 | Howell v. Gray | green | “when evaluating whether to grant leave to amend, the court must consider (1) undue delay; (2) prejudice to the opposing party; (3) futility of the amendment; (4) bad faith; and (5) whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” | 25 |
| 7 | Abdullah v. Washington | green | “because amendments are to be liberally granted, the non-movant bears the burden of showing why an amendment should not be allowed.” | 20 |
| 8 | United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. | green | “courts that have found an undue delay in filing a proposed amended complaint have generally confronted cases in which the movants failed to promptly allege a claim for which they already possessed evidence.” | 11 |
| 9 | United States v. Mark Wellington, United States of America v. Jerome C. Utz | green | “any person charged with a crime that is punishable by death or imprisonment in a penitentiary has a constitutional right to be indicted by a grand jury.” | 10 |
| 10 | Flaherty v. Pritzker | green | “the court is required to assume the truth of the allegations in the amended complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the movant.” | 9 |
| 11 | Djourabchi v. Self | green | “substantially changes the theory on which the case has been proceeding and is proposed late enough so that the opponent would be required to engage in significant new preparation” | 9 |
| 12 | Elkins v. District of Columbia | green | “is a valid reason to reject a party's attempt to add a new theory of liability to a complaint.” | 7 |
| 13 | The Scotts Company LLC v. Seeds, Inc. | green | “federal courts have broad authority to look beyond the pleadings and arrange-or realign-the parties according to their sides in the dispute.” | 7 |
| 14 | Palacios v. Medstar Health, Inc. | green | “would not survive a motion to dismiss-such as where a claim sought to be added is barred by the statute of limitations.” | 4 |
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.