Tenth Circuit· 12/2/1987

Smith v. United States

Citations

834 F.2d 166
9 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 919

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the fifth factor which courts are to consider is whether the need for additional discovery was foreseeable in light of the scheduling order that the Court established
noting that the first two factors in deciding to reopen discovery are whether the trial is imminent and the request is opposed
stating that a client is bound by his lawyer’s representation “when the lawyer (or the client) makes a tactical decision and his noncompliance with the court’s directive is not a product of inadvertence.”
finding this factor weighed towards denial of movant’s request to reopen discovery when movant “sought extensions of discovery immediately prior to scheduled trial settings and on the morning of trial.”
explaining the reasoning behind this general rule is to ensure clients and lawyers take care to comply with the court’s rules and orders, and “any rule which considered the client’s lack of fault would be to visit the sins of client’s counsel on the opposing counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baldock, McKay, McWilliams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.