Leeper v. Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the winch operator provided through contract was subject to the authority and control of the company that borrowed him and he was a borrowed servant of the company
• finding undue delay and 10 affirming district court’s denial of motion to amend, where the proposed amendment 11 sought to add a new theory of liability known to the plaintiff years earlier
• prejudice where defendants would “be forced to reprepare its case for trial on an entirely different factual theory of liability . . . [and] conduct more off-shore discovery”
• party was substantially prejudiced because it would have been forced to 27 conduct more discovery and “reprepare its case for trial on an entirely different factual 28 theory of liability”
• party was substantially 10 prejudiced because it would have been forced to conduct more discovery and “reprepare its case 11 for trial on an entirely different factual theory of liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).