Ken Hammer v. The City of Osage Beach, Missouri, and Jim Schneider

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that leave to amend should be freely granted pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) unless compelling reasons exist “such as ... futility of the amendment”
• holding that there is no right to amend pleadings
• finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend unrelated claims fifteen months after filing the original complaint, after discovery had closed, and after dispositive motions were filed
• stating that “there is no absolute right to amend a pleading,” and affirming a denial of a motion for leave to amend filed after discovery had closed and after a defendant had moved for summary judgment
• stating a motion to amend may be denied based on futility or undue delay
• stating a motion to amend may be denied based on futility or undue delay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).