Bank of Montreal v. Charles R. Lawliss & Associates, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that persisting in a course of care that was not helping, coupled with delays, and a worsened outcome, was sufficient to allow reasonable jurors to reach a finding in favor of a plaintiff or medical providers
• identifying the reasons that justify denying a motion for leave to amend the complaint
• reasonable jury could conclude defendants’ continued conservative treatment of inmate’s condition was ineffective and delayed inmate from receiving adequate medical care
• “[D]istrict courts ‘may deny leave to amend . . . where there is a good reason to do so, such as futility, undue delay, prejudice, or bad faith.’”
• treatment must be “so inadequate that it demonstrated an absence of professional judgment”
• “Undue delay and prejudice, together, may be sufficient reasons for denying an amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).