Miller v. Seattle City Light

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an order denying leave to amend was appealable under § 1292(a)(3) because it “effectively dismissed” the plaintiff’s claims
• holding that “a party to a maritime contract should not be permitted to shield itself contractually from liability for gross negligence”
• holding that the defendant’s conduct could not be characterized as overreaching where the plaintiff assented without complaint to the agreement containing the exculpatory clause
• holding that an order denying leave to amend was appealable under § 1292(a)(3) because it “effectively dismissed” the plaintiff’s claims
• holding that the district court ! || did not abuse its discretion to deny amendment after the plaintiff had “twice before 2 || amended its complaint’
• holding that third-party complaints satisfied Rule 14(c) by referring to the rule and explaining how - 7 - and why third-party defendants were liable to the original plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).