Fourth Circuit· 12/4/2002

Frank's v. Ross

Citations

313 F.3d 184
54 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 811
33 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20120
2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 24523

How courts have described this case

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

holding that motions to supplement “should be freely granted, and should be denied only where ‘good reason exists . . ., such as prejudice to the defendants’”
instructing that leave to supplement “should be freely granted” and warrants denial only where there is a “good reason” for doing so (citation omitted)
noting that the standards courts apply “in ruling on a motion to amend” under Rule 15(a)(2) and “on a motion to supplement” under Rule 15(d) “are nearly identical” and that “leave should be freely granted” in either situation
“[L]eave should be freely granted, and should be denied only where good reason exists . . . such as prejudice to defendants.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
“[L]eave should be freely granted, and should be denied only where good reason exists . . . such as prejudice to defendants.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
“In fact, such leave ‘should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.