Case Citator › Bank v. Pitt

Bank v. Pitt

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

Overruled in part
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
928 F.2d 1108
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
188 of 203
Citing cases (total)
424
Treatment dates
2002
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Bank v. Pitt was overruled in part; one confirmed treatment is listed below. Of 203 flagged citations, 188 citing opinions were read.
More on how this was screened

The Eleventh Circuit's en banc decision in Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp. overruled Bank's rule requiring a court to grant counseled plaintiffs leave to amend on its own initiative, while leaving the rule for pro se litigants undecided. The other readable opinions applied Bank's surviving rule or reported Wagner's decision. The text of 15 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so they remain unread.

The treatments below are confirmed; unread citations could still change the overall status.
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, except the ones whose text could not be retrieved.

424 later cases cite Bank v. Pitt; 203 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading; 188 of them have been read, and the text of 15 citing opinions could not be retrieved, so those remain unread. 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 Bank v. Pitt?

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

Overruled in part

  • The en banc court overruled Bank's sua-sponte amendment rule for counseled plaintiffs who had not sought leave to amend, applied the replacement rule prospectively, and expressly left pro se litigants undecided.

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

    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. ... We, however, conclude that this rule will be applied prospectively. ... In this opinion, we decide and intimate nothing about a party proceeding pro se.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Bank v. Pitt 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