§Why CasetextPricing

Bishop v. Anderson et al

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment and Motion for Leave

9 Cited authorities

  1. Foman v. Davis

    371 U.S. 178 (1962)   Cited 28,629 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appeal was improperly dismissed when the record as a whole — including a timely but incomplete notice of appeal and a premature but complete notice — revealed the orders petitioner sought to appeal

  2. Matthews v. Jones

    35 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,731 times
    Holding police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983

  3. Thiokol Corp. v. Department of Treasury

    987 F.2d 376 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 836 times
    Holding that a proposed amendment to a complaint is futile if the amendment could not withstand a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss

  4. Brooks v. Celeste

    39 F.3d 125 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 660 times
    Finding that repeatedly violating an objective standard of reasonableness is not necessarily the same as deliberate indifference and recognizing that "[t]he official may be incompetent, but he is not acting wantonly, and thus, is not inflicting `punishment'"

  5. Neighborhood Development Corp. v. Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, Department of Housing & Urban Development

    632 F.2d 21 (6th Cir. 1980)   Cited 333 times
    Holding that motion to amend may be denied as futile where "complaint, as amended could not withstand a motion to dismiss"

  6. Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.

    823 F.2d 945 (6th Cir. 1987)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that denial of a motion to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed before discovery had been completed

  7. Rose v. Davis

    Case No. C-1-02-271 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2005)

    Case No. C-1-02-271. March 28, 2005 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TIMOTHY HOGAN, Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendant Police Officers Eric Davis and Jeffery Battison's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 29), Plaintiffs Kenneth Rose and Thomas Seibert's Response in Opposition (Doc. 31), and Defendants Davis and Battison's Reply in Support (Doc. 32). FACTUAL BACKGROUND This action arose from a confrontation between Plaintiff Kenneth Rose, his step-father Plaintiff Thomas J. Seibert

  8. Haragan v. American Federation of Grain Millers International

    445 S.W.2d 131 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)

    May 2, 1969. Rehearing Denied October 24, 1969. Appeal from the Circuit Court, Common Pleas Branch, First Division, Jefferson County, James S. Shaw, J. Stuart E. Alexander, Tilford, Dobbins, Caye Alexander, Louisville, for appellant. Bill V. Seiller, Jones, Ewen, MacKenzie Peden, Louisville, for appellees. DAVIS, Commissioner. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendants in James Haragan's action for personal injuries and special expenses allegedly sustained by Haragan when his motorcycle

  9. Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 15   Cited 90,557 times   91 Legal Analyses
    Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint