Mawhinney v. New York

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend, a conclusion “confirmed by [the court’s] review of the proposed amended complaint,” which did not allege facts sufficient to state a claim
• affirming dismissal with prejudice where plaintiff had an opportunity to amend, rendering further amendment “futile”
• affirming dismissal with prejudice “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, . . .”
• affirming dismissal with prejudice because, “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, . . . it is not an abuse of [the district court's] discretion to deny leave to amend”
• affirming dismissal with prejudice because, “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, . . . it is not an abuse of the [district court’s] discretion to deny leave to amend”
• affirming dismissal with prejudice because, “[w]here it appears that granting leave to amend is unlikely to be productive, . . . it is not an abuse of [the district court’s] discretion to deny leave to amend”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).