Watts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An approach that better reflects the liberal policy of Rule 15(c) is to determine whether the adverse party, viewed as a reasonably prudent man, ought to have been able to anticipate or should have expected that the character of the originally pleaded claim might be altered or that other aspects of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading might be called into question. ****** The judicial insistence on notice does not mean that the courts will bar relation back simply because the amended pleading deviates markedly from the original .... The fact that an amendment changes the legal theory on which the action initially was brought is of no consequence if the factual situation upon which the action depends remains the same and has been brought to defendant’s attention by the original pleading. Thus, an amendment may set forth a different statute as the basis of the claim, or change a common law claim to a statutory claim or vice versa, or shift from a contract theory to a tort theory, or delete a negligence count and add or substitute a claim based on warranty, or change an allegation of negligence in manufacture to continuing negligence in advertising. Indeed, an amendment that states an entirely new claim for relief will relate back as long as it satisfies the test embodied in the first sentence of Rule 15(c).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY. · O'KEEFE v. Grenke

2. “[A] change in parties should relate back (a) where the claim amended arises out of the same transaction or occurrence described in the original pleading, (b) where because the defendant has had ample notice of the nature of the claim being asserted, there is no prejudice in the ability of the defendant to defend that amended complaint on the merits, and (c) where the initial failure to designate the appropriate party was the product of a mistake.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. Toshiba International Corp.

3. ““As long as the original complaint provides defendant with adequate notice of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence upon which plaintiff bases his claim .. ., it is reasonable to assume that defendant has knowledge of any claim plaintiff might assert in any capacity arising out of the event in dispute.... ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marshall v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY.