§Why CasetextPricing

Lambert v. Wolff, et al

RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's Order Permitting Substitution of Bartlett's Estate, Successors, or Representatives as Party Defendant

25 Cited authorities

  1. Robertson v. Wegmann

    436 U.S. 584 (1978)   Cited 758 times
    Holding that a state law that totally eliminated a § 1983 claim did not violate the compensation and deterrence goals of § 1983

  2. Manhattan Industries v. Goldstein

    474 U.S. 1005 (1985)   Cited 145 times
    Finding evidence of prior bid rigging relevant to intent and knowledge charged in Sherman Act

  3. Pietrowski v. Dibble

    134 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 234 times
    Holding that under Oklahoma law, the plaintiff's civil rights claim for malicious prosecution would abate upon the death of the defendant

  4. Unicorn Tales, Inc. v. Banerjee

    138 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 174 times
    Holding that a statement of the fact of death triggered the 90-day period despite its failure to identify a legal representative or successor

  5. Fariss v. Lynchburg Foundry

    769 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. 1985)   Cited 245 times
    Holding that, in an ADEA case, the plaintiff's claims for back wages and life insurance premiums were fully offset by a lump sum he received from his employer at termination

  6. Grandbouche v. Lovell

    913 F.2d 835 (10th Cir. 1990)   Cited 118 times
    Holding that even though the attorney for the decedent's estate was noticed, the successor or representatives of the deceased-party's estate were required to be noticed as well

  7. Sinito v. U.S. Department of Justice

    176 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 85 times
    Holding that FOIA cause of action, despite the absence of a statutory survival provision, survives plaintiff's death

  8. Ransom v. Brennan

    437 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1971)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that court lacked personal jurisdiction over executrix when motion to substitute was filed only on deceased's attorney, not executrix personally

  9. Rende v. Kay

    415 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1969)   Cited 142 times
    Holding a suggestion of death filed by the attorney of the deceased client that did not name his widow, who was the executrix of his will, was not sufficient to trigger the ninety-day period for filing a motion to substitute under Rule 25

  10. McSurely v. McClellan

    753 F.2d 88 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 86 times
    Holding that publication of private facts "may be satisfied by proof of disclosure to a very limited number of people when a special relationship exists between the plaintiff and the `public' to whom the information has been disclosed," and concluding that the publicity element was satisfied where the wife's private papers discussing her premarital behavior were disclosed to her spouse

  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 69,830 times   123 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  12. Rule 25 - Substitution of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 25   Cited 10,806 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Providing for the automatic substitution at the district-court level of public officers sued in their official capacities

  13. Section 8302 - Survival action

    42 Pa. C.S. § 8302   Cited 247 times
    Relating to survival action

  14. Section 3371 - Actions which survive

    20 Pa. C.S. § 3371   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    All causes of action or proceedings shall survive as provided by 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302 (relating to survival action). 20 Pa.C.S. § 3371 1972, June 30, P.L. 508, No. 164, § 2, eff. July 1, 1972. Amended 1978, April 28, P.L. 202, No. 53, § 8(13), effective 6/27/1978.