Kendall Sherman and Arthur Sherman, Jr. v. Fred H. Hallbauer

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing the district court because it did not construe an opposition to summary judgment as a motion to amend the pleadings with respect to Sherman’s theory of the case
• opposition memoranda to summary-judgment motion raised a new issue and should have been construed as an amendment to the complaint
• memo opposing summary judgment raised a new issue and should have been treated as a motion to amend and granted
• memorandum in opposition to motion for summary judgment raising new allegations should have been construed as an amendment 3 to the complaint
• “[I]n the interests of justice the district court should have construed the Shermans’s frantically • revised theory of the case, as plainly set forth in their memorandum in opposition to summary judgment, as a motion to amend the pleadings filed out of time” and granted it.
• “The command of Rule 15 is straightforward and permissive. On the facts of this case, fair treatment for the Shermans requires that they not be deprived of their day in court simply because, for a time, their attorney did much to insure that the day would never come.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).