implead

(redirected from impleads)
Also found in: Legal.

im·plead

 (ĭm-plēd′)
tr.v. im·plead·ed, im·plead·ing, im·pleads
To sue (a third party) in a lawsuit that has already been commenced as a defendant who may be liable for the claim that is the subject of the suit.

[Middle English empleden, from Anglo-Norman empleder, variant of Old French emplaider : en-, intensive pref. (from Latin in-; see in-2) + plaidier, to plead; see plead.]

implead

(ɪmˈpliːd)
vb (tr)
1. (Law)
a. to sue or prosecute
b. to bring an action against
2. (Law) to accuse
[C13: from Anglo-French empleder; see im-, plead]
imˈpleadable adj
imˈpleader n

im•plead

(ɪmˈplid)

v.t. -plead•ed -plead (-ˈplɛd)
or -pled, -plead•ing.
to sue in a court of law.
[1250–1300; Middle English empleden < Anglo-French empleder. See im-1, plead]
im•plead′a•ble, adj.
im•plead′er, n.

implead


Past participle: impleaded
Gerund: impleading

Imperative
implead
implead
Present
I implead
you implead
he/she/it impleads
we implead
you implead
they implead
Preterite
I impleaded
you impleaded
he/she/it impleaded
we impleaded
you impleaded
they impleaded
Present Continuous
I am impleading
you are impleading
he/she/it is impleading
we are impleading
you are impleading
they are impleading
Present Perfect
I have impleaded
you have impleaded
he/she/it has impleaded
we have impleaded
you have impleaded
they have impleaded
Past Continuous
I was impleading
you were impleading
he/she/it was impleading
we were impleading
you were impleading
they were impleading
Past Perfect
I had impleaded
you had impleaded
he/she/it had impleaded
we had impleaded
you had impleaded
they had impleaded
Future
I will implead
you will implead
he/she/it will implead
we will implead
you will implead
they will implead
Future Perfect
I will have impleaded
you will have impleaded
he/she/it will have impleaded
we will have impleaded
you will have impleaded
they will have impleaded
Future Continuous
I will be impleading
you will be impleading
he/she/it will be impleading
we will be impleading
you will be impleading
they will be impleading
Present Perfect Continuous
I have been impleading
you have been impleading
he/she/it has been impleading
we have been impleading
you have been impleading
they have been impleading
Future Perfect Continuous
I will have been impleading
you will have been impleading
he/she/it will have been impleading
we will have been impleading
you will have been impleading
they will have been impleading
Past Perfect Continuous
I had been impleading
you had been impleading
he/she/it had been impleading
we had been impleading
you had been impleading
they had been impleading
Conditional
I would implead
you would implead
he/she/it would implead
we would implead
you would implead
they would implead
Past Conditional
I would have impleaded
you would have impleaded
he/she/it would have impleaded
we would have impleaded
you would have impleaded
they would have impleaded
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
If the bill of lading indicates the name of a party in the letterhead then he invariably impleads him as a defendant in the proceedings and then by way of abundant caution and also in view of the provisions of section 55 of customs Act,1969, he impleads thelocal shipping agents as well.
Next I "suppose[d] that in response to P's original complaint against D1 alone, D1 impleads D2 as a third-party defendant under Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The conceptions disagree if B not only impleads AB but also counterclaims against A to establish A's proportional fault.
As a procedural matter it is clear that a plaintiff thus placed in a defensive posture has the right to implead new parties as third-party defendants who may be liable to indemnify the plaintiff for the liability asserted against the plaintiff.
Finally, the plaintiff impleads its Michigan subcontractor under Rule 14 for indemnity and contribution in response to the defendant's counterclaim.
Essentially, Plaintiff acts as a defendant to National Can's claim when it impleads
49) The Court reasoned that if ancillary jurisdiction could be exercised over such claims, a plaintiff could easily evade the requirement of complete diversity "by the simple expedient of suing only those defendants who were of diverse citizenship and waiting for them to implead nondiverse defendants.
For example, if a plaintiff from New Jersey sues a defendant from Pennsylvania who impleads a third-party defendant from New Jersey, the amendment is designed to preclude supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim against the third-party defendant.
Outside of that unlikely situation, a plaintiff seeking a federal court could do precisely as the Court in Kroger feared: file a federal action naming only those defendants diverse from the plaintiff, expecting that those defendants will implead the others who share the plaintiff's citizenship, and then file a claim against those third-party defendants.
It seems to me that we are at least as far away from the Kroger rationale here as we are when a plaintiff seeks to implead a third-party defendant in response to a counterclaim.
Plaintiff A sues defendant B, who impleads third-party defendant AA.
For instance, given the actual alignment of parties in the Kroger case, where A sues B and B impleads AB (a cocitizen of both A and B), AB's assertion of a claim against A would allow A to invoke supplemental jurisdiction over claims against additional nondiverse defendants joined by A's amendment of the complaint.