Margot Rendall-Speranza v. Edward A. Nassim’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A (2010), Goodman v. Praxair, Inc. (2007)
30 federal appellate · 31 district · 13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 288A · 22 U.S.C. § 288D · 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)
Relies on Swint v. Chambers County Commission · Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran · Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept. · Donald v. Cook County Sheriff's Department
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] potential defendant who has not been named in a lawsuit by the time the statute of limitations has run is entitled to repose-unless it is or should be apparent to that person that he is the beneficiary of a mere slip of the pen, as it were.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when ... (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set in the original pleading, or (3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]othing in the Rule or in the Notes indicates that the [relation back due to mistake] provision applies to a plaintiff who was fully aware of the potential defendant's identity but not of its responsibility for the harm alleged. In fact, the Notes speak of a defendant that may properly be added under Rule 15(c) as an `intended defendant,' and of an amendment pursuant to the Rule as `a name-correcting amendment.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harralson v. Monger
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.