Legal Opinion
Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 13, 1981No. Civ. A. No. 79-3016PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TROUTMAN, District Judge.
May a plaintiff, present in federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, amend her complaint to include a claim time-barred by state law? As Hamlet remarked in his redoubtable soliloquy, “That is the question”. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to amend his *64pleadings once “as a matter of course” under specified conditions1 and “[otherwise .. . only by leave of court .. . [which] shall be freely given when justice so requires”.2 Courts generously allow amendments, for
the Federal Rules reject the approach that pleading is…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Eaby v. RichmondDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Fleming v. MacK Trucks, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Renner v. LichtenwalnerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Long v. LipkinsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.