Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Arnold
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Davis D. Nev.
- 2025Guthrey v. Alta CA Regional Center E.D. Cal.
- 2025Dohermann v. Department of State Hospitals E.D. Cal.
- 2025Baldwin-Kennedy v. Garret E.D. Cal.
- 2025Zargarian v. Oudkirk E.D. Cal.
- 2025The GEO Group, Inc. v. Newsom E.D. Cal.
- 2025Mendoza v. Amazon.com Services LLC E.D. Cal.
- 2025Husok D. Nev.
- 2025Gonzalez E.D. Cal.
- 2025Persinger E.D. Cal.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
ROSENBERG BROTHERS & CO., Inc., a corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a corporation, Appellants, v. Albert ARNOLD, Appellee.
Attorneys
- Johnson & Stanton, Marshall A. Staun-ton, Gardiner Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
- Severson, Zang, Werson, Berke & Larson, Nathan R. Berke, David C. Bull, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
In view of the extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the general policy thereunder of wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter, we hold it was error not to let appellant’s amended counterclaim stay in the pleadings.
The appellee says the counterclaim is “delay” and “more delay.” The trial court perhaps was so impressed. If henceforward the appellant-defendant should be guilty of delaying tactics, the trial court has a number of available sanctions. And, in view of the leniency in permitting reinstatement, we do say that the defendant has an obligation to press for a speedy and early determination of the cause.
The final order dismissing the amended counterclaim is reversed.