Margaret B. v. Milwaukee Cnty.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a person who the plaintiff sought to add as a defendant had adequate notice under 15(c)(3
• holding that a person who the plaintiff sought to add as a defendant had adequate notice under 15(c)(3
• holding that a person who the plaintiff sought to add as a defendant had adequate notice under 15(c)(3
• concluding that the plaintiff could amend the complaint to name a defendant who was initially unnamed where the defendant testified that he knew that the complaint referred to him
• stating that whether satisfaction of conditions of Rule 15(c) is a question of fact
• finding amendment of a “John Doe” or “unknown employee” complaint sufficient for ‘mistake’ under 15(c)(3) relation back analysis

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).