10 Cited authorities

Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Center
323 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2003) Cited 406 times
Holding that Rule 17 is not triggered "simply because the litigant asserts her own incompetence or displays apparent signs of mental incapacity"
Gibbs ex Rel. Gibbs v. Carnival Cruise Lines
314 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 106 times
Holding that negligence claims based on injuries to a passenger on a cruise ship bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity
Garrick v. Weaver
888 F.2d 687 (10th Cir. 1989) Cited 109 times
Holding that a minor's mother lacked authority to proceed as Next Friend in federal suit where the federal court had appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child
Thomas v. Humfield
916 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 64 times
Holding that, under the circumstances, due process required that the district court conduct a hearing prior to appointment of guardian ad litem
Kuelbs v. Hill
615 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2010) Cited 29 times
Holding that district court gave plaintiffs reasonable time to substitute party when it ordered them to address the issue and waited six months before dismissing
Scannavino v. Florida Dept. of Corrections
242 F.R.D. 662 (M.D. Fla. 2007) Cited 24 times
Recognizing that "[b]ecause ' person may be competent to make some decisions but not others,' the test of a party's competency 'varies from one context to another'"
Noe v. True
507 F.2d 9 (6th Cir. 1974) Cited 67 times
In Noe v. True, the Sixth Circuit held that it was error to refuse to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff even though she was represented by counsel, because the duties of the guardian ad litem involve "a role not ordinarily contemplated by the simple attorney-client relationship."
Donnelly v. Parker
486 F.2d 402 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Cited 24 times
Stating that Rule 17(c) may require an inquiry into the plaintiff's "capacity to understand the meaning and effect of the litigation being prosecuted in her name."
Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 Cited 10,816 times 11 Legal Analyses
Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities
Rule 17 - Plaintiff and Defendant; Capacity; Public Officers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 Cited 9,221 times 23 Legal Analyses
Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"

Jackson v. Cleveland et al

10 Cited authorities

Holding that Rule 17 is not triggered "simply because the litigant asserts her own incompetence or displays apparent signs of mental incapacity"

Holding that negligence claims based on injuries to a passenger on a cruise ship bore a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity

Holding that a minor's mother lacked authority to proceed as Next Friend in federal suit where the federal court had appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child

Holding that, under the circumstances, due process required that the district court conduct a hearing prior to appointment of guardian ad litem

Holding that district court gave plaintiffs reasonable time to substitute party when it ordered them to address the issue and waited six months before dismissing

Recognizing that "[b]ecause ' person may be competent to make some decisions but not others,' the test of a party's competency 'varies from one context to another'"

In Noe v. True, the Sixth Circuit held that it was error to refuse to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor plaintiff even though she was represented by counsel, because the duties of the guardian ad litem involve "a role not ordinarily contemplated by the simple attorney-client relationship."

Stating that Rule 17(c) may require an inquiry into the plaintiff's "capacity to understand the meaning and effect of the litigation being prosecuted in her name."

Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

Providing that, for this type of entity, "[c]apacity to sue or be sued is determined . . . by the law of the state where the court is located"