27 Cited authorities

Foman v. Davis
371 U.S. 178 (1962) Cited 28,623 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
Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.
561 U.S. 247 (2010) Cited 1,458 times 177 Legal Analyses
Holding extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction
TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
426 U.S. 438 (1976) Cited 2,479 times 67 Legal Analyses
Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"
Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States
406 U.S. 128 (1972) Cited 1,627 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation
Firestone v. Firestone
76 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 1,235 times
Holding that Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate when "there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"
Richardson v. U.S.
193 F.3d 545 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 424 times
Holding that District Court abused its discretion when "failing to consider [ pro se plaintiff's] complaint in light of his reply to the motion to dismiss"
Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC
148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 350 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint," and that "artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim"
Rubke v. Capitol Bancorp Ltd.
551 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 193 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter
Ronzani v. Sanofi S.A
899 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 262 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion in failing to allow repleading where the plaintiff had made no motion to replead but had noted in his supplemental opposition brief his desire to replead if the motion were granted
Williamsburg Wax Museum, Inc. v. Historic Figures, Inc.
810 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 185 times
Holding that a November 1984 motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to amend a September 1982 district court judgment was untimely, even though this court's decision on appeal had been entered in February 1984 and certiorari denied in October 1984
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,885 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,531 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
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,425 times 66 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Phelps v. Stomber et al

27 Cited authorities

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 extraterritorial application of a statute is a merits question, not a question of subject matter jurisdiction

Holding that materiality may be resolved at summary judgment "if the established omissions are so obviously important to an investor that reasonable minds cannot differ on the question of materiality"

Holding bank jointly and severally liable with its employees, without explanation

Holding that Rule 59(e) relief is appropriate when "there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"

Holding that District Court abused its discretion when "failing to consider [ pro se plaintiff's] complaint in light of his reply to the motion to dismiss"

Holding that "the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint," and that "artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim"

Holding that allegations of motive and opportunity were not enough to create a strong inference of scienter

Holding that district court abused its discretion in failing to allow repleading where the plaintiff had made no motion to replead but had noted in his supplemental opposition brief his desire to replead if the motion were granted

Holding that a November 1984 motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to amend a September 1982 district court judgment was untimely, even though this court's decision on appeal had been entered in February 1984 and certiorari denied in October 1984

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"