· 3/11/1991
Jeffrey A. Saul v. United States of America Ray Larsen Colleen St. Louis John Doe St. Louis
Citations
- 928 F.2d 829
- 6 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 447
- 91 Daily Journal DAR 2829
- 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1740
- 136 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2783
- 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 3750
- 1991 WL 30335
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- Leave to 8 amend may be denied if the proposed amendment is futile or would be subject to dismissal
- “A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile”
- A district court can deny leave “where the amendment would be futile . . . or where the 21 amended complaint would be subject to dismissal”
- A district court can deny leave “where the amendment 7 || would be futile . . . or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal”
- “A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would 18 be futile … or where the amended complaint would be subject to dismissal” [citations omitted]
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Norris, Schroeder, Wright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.