|
|
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)
Foman v. Davis No. 41 Argued November 14, 1962 Decided December 3, 1962 371 U.S. 178
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A Federal District Court dismissed petitioner’s complaint in a civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. Petitioner promptly moved to vacate the judgment and amend the complaint so as to state an alternative theory for recovery. Before the Court ruled on those motions, petitioner filed notice of appeal from the judgment of dismissal. Subsequently, the District Court denied the motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint, and petitioner filed notice of appeal from that denial. On appeal, the parties briefed and argued the merits of both the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of petitioner’s motions. The Court of Appeals treated the first notice of appeal as premature, because of the then pending motion to vacate, and it dismissed that appeal. It held that the second notice of appeal was ineffective to review the judgment of dismissal, because it failed to specify that the appeal was from that judgment, and it affirmed denial of petitioner’s motions, on the ground that there was nothing in the record to support a finding that the District Court had abused its discretion in refusing to allow amendment of the complaint.
Held:
1. On the record in this case, the Court of Appeals erred in narrowly reading the second notice of appeal as applying only to the denial of petitioner’s motions, since petitioner’s intention to seek review of both the dismissal of the complaint and the denial of her motions was manifest from the record as a whole. Pp. 181-182.
2. The Court of Appeals also erred in affirming the District Court’s denial of petitioner’s motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal in order to allow amendment of the complaint, since it appears from the record that the amendment would have done no more than state an alternative theory of recovery, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) declares that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires," and denial of the motion without any apparent justifying reason was an abuse of discretion. P. 182.
292 F.2d 85 reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) in 371 U.S. 178 371 U.S. 179. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EGWNZLEVE7TTS5N.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), in 371 U.S. 178, page 371 U.S. 179. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EGWNZLEVE7TTS5N.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). cited in 1962, 371 U.S. 178, pp.371 U.S. 179. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=EGWNZLEVE7TTS5N.
|