From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.

U.S.
Oct 31, 1983
464 U.S. 937 (1983)

Summary

recognizing district court may properly deny motion to amend where amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Wallace v. Federated Department Stores

Opinion

No. 83-386.

October 31, 1983.


C.A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 706 F. 2d 111.


Summaries of

Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.

U.S.
Oct 31, 1983
464 U.S. 937 (1983)

recognizing district court may properly deny motion to amend where amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss

Summary of this case from Wallace v. Federated Department Stores

stating that "the defendants here were not diligent in pursuing this case and therefore would not prevail even if gross negligence qualified as another Rule 60(b) ground for relief"

Summary of this case from Nelson v. City Colleges of Chicago

arising under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)

Summary of this case from Deppe v. Tripp
Case details for

Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MASSARSKY v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP

Court:U.S.

Date published: Oct 31, 1983

Citations

464 U.S. 937 (1983)

Citing Cases

United States v. Dimucci

Until recently the Seventh Circuit had refused to take a position on this issue. SeeInryco, Inc. v.…

Selzer v. the Board of Educ. of City of New York

(1st Cir.1984), the theory has also been applied in employment discrimination actions based on other…