14 Cited authorities

Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,508 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
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
Bonner v. City of Prichard
661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) Cited 16,032 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit
Bryant v. Dupree
252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001) Cited 982 times
Holding that a district court need not allow an amendment where there has been a repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed
Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose
893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,234 times
Holding that whether a tribe had the authority to enforce a tribal ordinance against a non-Native was a federal question
Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp.
660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 1,189 times
Holding that district courts may only deny leave to amend when there is a substantial reason for doing so
Sherman v. Hallbauer
455 F.2d 1236 (5th Cir. 1972) Cited 336 times
Holding that the district court should have construed a summary judgment memorandum containing a revised theory of the case as a motion to amend pleadings under Rule 15
Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Elan Corp.
421 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 117 times 4 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that “antitrust cases are ‘fact-intensive,’ and require appropriate market analysis, and therefore are typically inappropriate for a Rule 12 dismissal”
PI, Inc. v. Quality Products, Inc.
907 F. Supp. 752 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) Cited 118 times
Holding that to satisfy New York's long-arm statute, complaint must frame cause of action in tort
Roberts v. Arizona Bd. of Regents
661 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 138 times
Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where motion was "raised at the eleventh hour, after discovery was virtually complete and the [defendant's] motion for summary judgment was pending before the court

Blaszkowski et al v. Mars Inc. et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

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

Holding that all decisions from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit

Holding that a district court need not allow an amendment where there has been a repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed

Holding that whether a tribe had the authority to enforce a tribal ordinance against a non-Native was a federal question

Holding that district courts may only deny leave to amend when there is a substantial reason for doing so

Holding that the district court should have construed a summary judgment memorandum containing a revised theory of the case as a motion to amend pleadings under Rule 15

Recognizing that “antitrust cases are ‘fact-intensive,’ and require appropriate market analysis, and therefore are typically inappropriate for a Rule 12 dismissal”

Holding that to satisfy New York's long-arm statute, complaint must frame cause of action in tort

Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend where motion was "raised at the eleventh hour, after discovery was virtually complete and the [defendant's] motion for summary judgment was pending before the court