Allen v. 1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Ass'n

How later courts describe this case

• upholding prehearing seizure of 19,000 copies of publications pending adversary hearing on the following morning
• burden of additional discovery necessary to defend new legal theory advanced after delay is “manifestly unfair and unduly prejudicial”
• Court denied motion to amend pleadings to set forth an alternative theory of recovery where the case had been pending for two and one-half years
• leave to amend has been denied when “no reason for ... extended and undue delay, other than ignorance of the law,” has been advanced
• “[T]o put [defendant] through the time and expense of continued litigation on a new theory, with the possibility of additional discovery, would be manifestly unfair and unduly prejudicial.”
• no abuse of discretion to deny motion to assert alternative theory of recovery after defendant had had to defend against theory originally presented at both the trial and appellate level
• “[T]o put Schwinn through the time and expense of continued litigation on a new theory, with the possibility of additional discovery, would be manifestly unfair and prejudicial.”
• two and a half years elapsed