Andrew J. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The two bankruptcy decisions rejected Wagner's rule and adopted Bank v. Pitt's contrary amendment rule. The other citing opinions applied Wagner, applied its express reservation for pro se litigants, reported Wagner's own overruling of Bank or adverse treatment of another precedent, involved rejected arguments, duplicated another citing opinion, or were flagged in error.
510 later cases cite Andrew J. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries; 204 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 Andrew J. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries?
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
Declined to follow
-
The bankruptcy court declined to follow Wagner's rule for represented plaintiffs and instead adopted Bank v. Pitt's contrary rule generally allowing one opportunity to amend before dismissal with prejudice.
Centier Bank v. Young (In re Young) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana · filed
As stated, the court does not deem the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be in parallel with the rule announced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., supra. Rather, this court views the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be more in consonance with the rule announced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bank v. Pitt, supra., and it is that rule which the court adopts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The bankruptcy court declined to follow Wagner's rule for represented plaintiffs and instead adopted Bank v. Pitt's contrary rule generally allowing one opportunity to amend before dismissal with prejudice.
Lazzaro v. Weichman (In re Weichman) · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana · filed
As stated, the court does not deem the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be in parallel with the rule announced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp., supra. Rather, this court views the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to be more in consonance with the rule announced by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Bank v. Pitt, supra., and it is that rule which the court adopts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Andrew J. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries 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