CopyCited 171 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3580, 1988 WL 18325
established under § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15, 15 § 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 22
0 red0 yellow122 green6 procedural
Cited as authorityDoe (2026)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityBryant (2026)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...have such an identity of interest that the relation back is not prejudicial. This portion of the exception was relied on by the majority. However, this is not the only element that the movant must establish. As stated in 3 Moore's Federal Practice, Section 15.15, page 1046: "In addition to demonstrating this absence of prejudice, to qualify under the exception to the general rule, the plaintiff had to show that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect." (Emphasis supplied.) See McDonald v....
0 red0 yellow4 green11 procedural
Cited as authorityRayner (2010)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 8 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10539, 1993 WL 289258
affidavits pursuant to § 8, 15 U.S.C. § 1058, and § 15, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, have been filed and each of these
0 red0 yellow6 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityAranosian (1995)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1994 WL 622982
affidavits pursuant to § 8, 15 U.S.C. § 1058, and § 15, 15 U.S.C. § 1065, have been filed and each of these
0 red0 yellow25 green0 procedural
Cited as authoritySpaulding (2024)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authorityQuinnie (2017)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...have such an identity of interest that the relation back is not prejudicial. This portion of the exception was relied on by the majority. However, this is not the only element that the movant must establish. As stated in 3 Moore's Federal Practice, Section 15.15, page 1046: "`In addition to demonstrating this absence of prejudice, to qualify under the exception to the general rule, the plaintiff had to show that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect....
0 red0 yellow1 green1 procedural
Cert. deniedClemons (1980)phrase: "cert. denied"
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2603
...in an effort to comply with employer rules regarding parking, the circumstances surrounding her injury were sufficiently connected to her employment to entitle her to workers' compensation benefits. In 1 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 15.15, the above concept was explained as follows: Claimant has been subjected to a particular risk because of his employment, the risk of crossing certain railway tracks near the plant entrance, for example....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19752, 2016 WL 6500595
the denial. See 3-15 Moore’s Federal Practice §
15.15 (Matthew Bender 3d ed.) ("[A] trial court must
3 red1 yellow27 green10 procedural
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...t the amended complaint does not "relate back" to the date the original complaint was filed. Cabot v. Clearwater Construction Company,
89 So.2d 662 (Fla.); Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, Section 448; 3 Moore's Federal Practice, Section
15.15 at pages 1040-41; and Galuppi v....
0 red0 yellow0 green3 procedural
Cert. deniedCinque (1993)phrase: "cert. denied"
Cert. deniedYaffee (1983)phrase: "cert. denied"
Cert. deniedClemons (1980)phrase: "cert. denied"
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 10489
district court also framed the issue as "whether Section 15 15(c) is an affirmative defense which the defendant
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...have such an identity of interest that the substituted defendant will not be
prejudiced, but also “that his failure to join the correct parties at the outset
had not been due to his own inexcusable neglect” (quoting 3 Moore’s Federal
Practice, § 15.15)).
2
