Foman v. Davis

Last updated
Foman v. Davis

Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

Argued November 14, 1962
Decided December 3, 1962
Full case nameLenore Foman v. Elvira A. Davis
Citations

371 U.S. 178 ( more )

83 S. Ct. 227; 9 L. Ed. 2d 222; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 65
Prior history Judgment affirmed and motions to vacate the judgment and amend the complaint denied by the First Circuit, 292 F.2d 85 (1st Cir. 1961); cert. granted, 368 U.S. 951 (1962)
Subsequent history Judgment reversed by the First Circuit, 316 F.2d 254 (1963)
Holding
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires courts to grant a party leave to amend a pleading except in limited circumstances.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
Tom C. Clark  · John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Arthur Goldberg
Case opinions
Majority Goldberg, joined by Warren, Black, Douglas, Clark, Brennan, Stewart
Concur/dissent Harlan, joined by White
Laws applied
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), [1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) [2] to require that federal courts grant a party leave to amend a pleading absent special circumstances such as bad faith or prejudice to the opposing party. It has been recognized by both other courts [3] and secondary sources [4] as a leading decision on the interpretation of Rule 15(a).

Supreme Court of the United States Highest court in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, it has original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, including suits between two or more states and those involving ambassadors. It also has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal court and state court cases that involve a point of federal constitutional or statutory law. The Court has the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide nonjusticiable political questions. Each year it agrees to hear about one hundred to one hundred fifty of the more than seven thousand cases that it is asked to review.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has seven months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the FRCP. The Court's modifications to the rules are usually based upon recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's internal policy-making body. Although federal courts are required to apply the substantive law of the states as rules of decision in cases where state law is in question, the federal courts almost always use the FRCP as their rules of civil procedure.

Contents

Background

Foman's father allegedly promised her he would not execute a will in exchange for Foman caring for her mother until her mother's death. After her mother died, Foman's father married Davis, and, contrary to the alleged promise, executed a will leaving his entire estate to Davis. Following her father's death, Foman filed suit against Davis in the District of Massachusetts to recover what would have been her intestate share of her father's estate, that is, the amount she would have gotten had he not executed a will, as he allegedly promised.

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts United States district court

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is the federal district court whose territorial jurisdiction is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, United States. The first court session was held in Boston in 1789. The second term was held in Salem in 1790 and court session locations alternated between the two cities until 1813. That year, Boston became the court's permanent home. A western division was opened in Springfield in 1979 and a central division was opened in Worcester in 1987. The court's main building is the John Joseph Moakley Federal Courthouse on Fan Pier in South Boston.

Intestacy

Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having made a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the "intestate estate". Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.

Davis moved to dismiss the case, arguing that, under Massachusetts law, an oral promise not to execute a will was within the statute of frauds and thus unenforceable. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Foman appealed the judgment to the First Circuit. Soon after appealing, though, Foman moved the district court for an order vacating the judgment and granting her leave to amend her complaint to assert a new cause of action for quantum meruit. The district court denied these motions, and Foman appealed this denial to the First Circuit. On appeal, the First Circuit held that it was unable to consider the merits of the case because Foman moved to vacate the judgment subsequent to her first appeal, meaning the judgment was not "final." The First Circuit then upheld the district court's denial of Foman's motions to vacate the judgment and amend her complaint. [5] The Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Statute of frauds type of statute specifying that certain contracts must be in writing

The statute of frauds refers to the requirement that certain kinds of contracts be memorialized in writing, signed by the party to be charged, with sufficient content to evidence the contract.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons that the filing party or parties believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Goldberg, writing for the Court, began by holding that the First Circuit was wrong to find that it could not consider the merits of the case because Foman moved to vacate the judgment after filing her initial appeal. Instead, the First Circuit should have considered the merits at the same time as the motions to vacate and amend.

Arthur Goldberg American statesman

Arthur Joseph Goldberg was an American statesman and jurist who served as the 9th U.S. Secretary of Labor, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the 6th United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

The Court then turned to the First Circuit's denial of Foman's motion to amend her complaint. Under Rule 15(a), federal courts "should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires." [2] In the Court's view, this meant that the standard for granting leave to amend was quite liberal: only in very limited circumstances would a denial of leave to amend be justified. Specifically, the Court found that undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by previous amendment, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of amendment would support a denial. Absent such special circumstances, it would be an abuse of discretion for a court to deny leave to amend. The Court granted Foman's motion to amend her complaint and remanded the case to the First Circuit for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The remand court procedure is used by higher courts to send cases back to lower courts for further action.

Concurrence/Dissent

The second Justice Harlan, writing for himself and Justice White, issued a two-sentence opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Harlan agreed that the First Circuit should have considered the merits of Foman's case, but he believed the question of whether Foman should have been allowed to amend her complaint was best left to the lower courts.

Byron White Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, American football player

Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from April 12, 1962 to June 28, 1993.

Subsequent Developments

On remand, the First Circuit considered the merits of Foman's case, as the Supreme Court had directed. [6] It overturned the district court, ruling that under Massachusetts law, an oral promise not to execute a will was not rendered unenforceable by the statute of frauds. [6] Accordingly, the First Circuit had no need to consider Foman's quantum meruit argument.

Related Research Articles

A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions.

Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004), was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The lawsuit, originally filed as Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al. in 2000, led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. After an initial decision striking the congressionally added "one nation under God" language, the superseding opinion on denial of rehearing en banc was more limited, holding that compelled recitation of the language by school teachers to students was invalid.

Emilio Miller Garza is a former United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

<i>Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.</i>

Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp., 467 F.3d 1104, was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws.

<i>Muntaqim v. Coombe</i>

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who is serving a life sentence, argues that the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure in the United States, occurs when a ruling by a trial court is appealed while other aspects of the case are still proceeding. Interlocutory appeals are allowed only under specific circumstances, which are laid down by the federal and the separate state courts.

Milan Smith American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon Smith, was a Republican United States Senator from Oregon from 1996 to 2009.

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

Sandra Segal Ikuta American judge

Sandra Segal Ikuta is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Stewart Richard Dalzell was a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

<i>Bigby v. Dretke</i>

Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh.

Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that parents could sue a school committee under grounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

American Foundation for Equal Rights

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) is a nonprofit organization established in 2009 to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963), was a case before the United States Supreme Court.

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that Article III required standing for each stage of litigation, rather than just when a complaint is filed.

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act."

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. is a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang in October 2011 against IMDb.com and its parent company Amazon.com for revealing her true date of birth, which she said opened her up to age discrimination. In March 2013, all of her claims against Amazon and all but one of her claims against IMDb were dismissed, and in April 2013, a jury found that IMDb was not liable for the remaining claim for breach of contract; the verdict was upheld on appeal.

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

<i>Washington v. Trump</i> Lawsuit challenging Executive Order 13769

State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, was a lawsuit that challenged the lawfulness and constitutionality of Executive Order 13769, an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

References

  1. ↑ Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962).
  2. 1 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15.
  3. ↑ See, e.g., Gardner v. So. Ry. Sys., 675 F.2d 949 (7th Cir. 1982).
  4. ↑ 6 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1487 (2d ed. 1990).
  5. ↑ Foman v. Davis, 292F.2d85 (1st Cir.1961).
  6. 1 2 Foman v. Davis, 316F.2d254 (1st Cir.1963).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.