Carroll Ex Rel. Carroll v. Fort James Corp. Ex Rel. Crown Zellerbach Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the grounds appeared ample and obvious when the appellants had failed to plead a fraud claim in their first amendment and failed to file a second amendment by the required deadline
• holding that a court’s sua sponte dismissal of a claim is permitted “as long as the procedure employed is fair” and concluding that “notice of the court's intention and an opportunity to respond” is a fair pre-dismissal procedure
• recognizing authority of district court to sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim
• noting that appellate courts “review a dismissal pursuant to [Rules] 12(b)(6) or 9(b) de novo” (citing Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 557 (5th Cir. 2002))
• citing, in turn, Shawnee Int’l, N.V. v. Hondo Drilling Co., 742 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1984)
• citing, in turn, Shawnee Int’l, N.V. v. Hondo Drilling Co., 742 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1984)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).