Stroup v. Tucker

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 90 period in which to make a motion to substitute had not commenced because the \suggestion of death\ did not identify a representative of the estate who may be substituted on the deceased plaintiff's behalf.
• “Where the proposed amended complaint does not accompany the motion to amend, ... the Court may deny the motion without prejudice.” (citations omitted)
• “[B]efore a motion to substitute may be granted, a representative of [the] estate must be named as the proper party for substitution.”
• “[B]efore a motion to substitute may be granted, a representative of [the] estate must be named as the proper party for substitution.”’
• “In order to satisfy the prerequisite of particularity in a motion to amend, a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint must accompany the motion so that both the Court and opposing parties can understand the exact changes sought.”’
• “In order to satisfy the prerequisite of particularity in a motion to amend, a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint must accompany the motion so that both the Court and opposing parties can understand the exact changes sought.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).