King v. Employers National Ins.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that moving party can succeed on summary judgment by negating the existence of a material element of the non-moving party’s claim or defense
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the leave to amend when the plaintiff sought to amend over one year after they had instituted their action and several months after discovery had been effectively terminated
• holding that “if the delay in filing a motion for leave to amend is particularly egregious, the burden shifts to the moving party to demonstrate that the delay was ‘due to oversight, inadvertence or excusable neglect.’”
• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the leave to amend when the plaintiff sought to amend over one year after they had instituted their action and several months after discovery had been effectively terminated
• affirming denial of leave to amend because party’s delay imposed burdens both on the defendants and on the court
• affirming order denying leave to amend where the amended complaint would have \established an entirely new factual basis for the plaintiffs' claims” and thus \radically altered the nature of trial on the merits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).