James Boggs v. Dravo Corporation. Appeal of Rosalie B. Peterson, Administratrix of the Estate of James Boggs, Deceased

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred in denying motion to substitute, reasoning that “there is no question but that a timely motion brought by the Administratrix of a deceased party is within the terms of the Rule’s operation.”
• holding district court erred in denying motion to substitute, reasoning that “there is no question but that a timely motion brought by the Administratrix of a deceased party is within the terms of the Rule’s operation.”
• holding district court erred in denying motion to substitute, reasoning that “there is no question but that a timely motion brought by the Administratrix of a deceased party is within the terms of the Rule’s operation.”
• emphasizing courts should apply Rule 25 “to allow flexibility in substitution of parties.”
• finding estate’s administrator was proper party for substitution under Rule 25
• finding estate’s administrator was proper party for substitution under Rule 25

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).