R. E. B., Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding an amendment proposed “five and one-half weeks before trial” did not constitute undue delay because “[t]he amendments did not propose substantially different issues” and “[t]he most important effect of the amendments was to refine the demands”
• addressing the issue of amendment on remand less than six weeks before trial and finding no prejudice when “[t]he amendments did not propose substantially different issues”
• finding no prejudice when “[t]he amendments did not propose substantially different issues”
• finding no prejudice when “[t]he amendments did not propose substantially different issues”
• finding no prejudice when “[t]he amendments did not propose substantially different issues”
• “[Rule 15] contemplates allowing amendments freely when justice requires” so long as any changes on remand do not “run counter to the mandate of the appellate court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).