Frank H. Glatt v. Chicago Park District, Jim Halpern, and Robert Nelson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he words ‘property’ and ‘entitlement’ connote an interest that is securely, though not absolutely, the holder’s”
• concluding that “[t]he words ‘property’ and ‘entitlement’ connote an interest that is securely, though not absolutely, the holder’s”
• holding that the standard applied to cases in which parties seek to supplement their pleadings under Rule 15(d) is the same as the standard applied to cases in which plaintiffs seek to amend their pleadings under Rule 15(a)
• holding motion to amend or supplement the complaint, unlike an original complaint, \requires more to compel acceptance than the fact that the pleading sought to be added states a claim\
• collecting cases showing the same factors are to be considered on motions to amend and supplement
• discussing the insufficiency of causation arguments based on “post hoc ergo propter hoc: the [action] followed the [purported cause], therefore must have been caused by it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).