Prater v. Ohio Education Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that a clause requiring “joint amendment” of the CBA was inconsistent with a plan’s reservation-of-rights provision, but holding that the CBA’s subordination provision required the court to resolve the inconsistency by disregarding the joint amendment clause
• upholding a district court’s denial of a motion to amend based on delay and “the late stage of the case when the motion was filed”
• affirming denial of leave to amend where plaintiff “had sufficient information to” bring additional claims “long before” filing
• requiring ‘“some significant showing of prejudice’ to deny a motion to amend base solely upon delay” (citation omitted)
• affirming district court’s denial of leave to amend in “late stage of the case,” nine months after the amendment deadline and after fully briefing summary judgment motions and exchanging “substantial” discovery
• “As in McCoy, neither summary explicitly represented to the retirees that existing medical treatment could be cut off, as the summary in Maurer did.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).