Skip to main content
· 12/27/1990

Preston v. Virginia

Citations

  • 779 F. Supp. 45
  • 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19978
  • 61 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,150
  • 56 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1536
  • 1990 WL 316216

How courts have described this case

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

  • finding plaintiff acted diligently in moving to amend the complaint following expiration of scheduling order deadline upon learning new, relevant facts in discovery
  • “[The defendant] will not have to expend significant additional resources because the same claims in the original complaint are being alleged against the new parties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Turk

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.