Fifth Circuit· 4/28/1994

Norman v. Apache Corp.

Citations

19 F.3d 1017
1994 WL 126754

How courts have described this case

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

holding that while Rules 8 and 9(b) are to be harmonized, “Rule 8 has never been read to eviscerate Rule 9(b)’s requirement that an averment of fraud must be stated with particularity.”
explaining that a district court may implicitly deny a motion by entering a final judgment
observing that an order granting summary judgment for the defendant was inherently inconsistent with granting the plaintiffs’ motion to amend
finding that a denial of relief in a case constitutes an implicit denial of a motion to amend because denial is inconsistent with granting the motion
the district court “must review de novo the portions of 20 the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”
“The denial of a motion by the district court, although not formally expressed, may be implied by the entry of ... an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought by the motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Politz, King, Davis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

162 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.