Case Citator › Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant

Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
755 F.2d 810
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
36 of 36
Citing cases (total)
36
Treatment dates
2002
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Friedlander v. Nims was abrogated in part on unrequested amendments for plaintiffs represented by counsel. The Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp. replaced the prior rule with one that does not require a court to offer such an amendment.
More on how this was screened

Marantes v. Miami-Dade County later identified Friedlander by name as abrogated by Wagner. Wagner expressly left pro se litigants unresolved. All 36 flagged citations have been read; this confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

36 later cases cite Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant; 36 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc replaced the rule requiring an unrequested opportunity to amend for a represented plaintiff; Marantes later identified Friedlander as abrogated by that decision.

    Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp. · Eleventh Circuit (en banc) · filed

    We thus address en banc whether a district court is required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court. In so doing, we overrule Bank and substitute the following rule: A district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Herman Friedlander, Etc., Cross-Appellees v. Jerry C. Nims, Timex Corporation, Cross-Appellant and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace