Rosenberg Brothers & Co., Inc., a Corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a Corporation v. Albert Arnold
ROSENBERG BROTHERS & CO., Inc., a Corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a Corporation, Appellants, v. Albert ARNOLD, Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
In view of the extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the general policy thereunder of wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter, we hold it was error not to let appellant’s amended counterclaim stay in the pleadings.
The appellee says the counterclaim is “delay” and “more delay.” The trial court perhaps was so impressed. If henceforward the appellant-defendant should be guilty of delaying tactics, the trial court has a number of available sanctions. And, in view of the leniency in permitting reinstatement, we do say that the defendant has an obligation to press for a speedy and early determination of the cause.
The final order dismissing the amended counterclaim is reversed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that the Ninth Circuit has a policy of “extreme liberality generally in favoring 23 amendments to pleadings.”)
Cited by 88 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.