Joliet & C. R. Co. v. United States

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 by not considering evidence of alleged retaliatory acts where the plaintiff \related facts to the EEOC which would have prompted an investigation into retaliation\
• noting that a broader reading is compelled where a plaintiff is unrepresented by an attorney
• noting that a broader reading is compelled where a plaintiff is unrepresented by an attorney
• stating that courts generally require “some significant showing of prejudice” to deny a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint
• finding that filing a motion for leave to amend after “both the discovery deadline and the dispositive motion deadline had passed” was “undue”
• finding that an amendment to a complaint after the close of discovery and submission of summary judgment motion would cause “significant prejudice” to defendants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).