Strauss v. Rex’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Admittedly, there are two opposing lines of authority on the propriety of permitting an amendment after the running of the statute of limitations which changes the description of the defendant from that of a corporation to an individual. A number of states lean to the view that such an amendment works an entire change of the parties and is tantamount to asserting a new cause of action. These authorities require the filing of an entire new complaint. On the contrary, there is an equally respectable line of cases which hold that if the basic cause of action is not changed and the amendment merely corrects a misnomer or description of the party-defendant, then it is not tantamount to a new cause of action. Most of the Federal cases appear to be aligned with the latter view. It is our view that since the adoption of our New Rules of Civil Procedure on January 1, 1950, Florida can more appropriately align itself with the more liberal view in allowing amendments of this nature. Prior to that date Florida pleading and practice was governed almost entirely by the strict rules and formalities of the common law. "Admittedly, prior to our new rules, the trial judge in this case would have been on very sound ground in denying the requested amendment. This is so because the common law required that the writ strictly follow the declaration or complaint. Our above quoted rules governing amendments, however, as well as other related rules, have introduced much greater liberality into our sy”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 358 So. 2d 577 - Garrido v. Markus, Winter & Spitale Law Firm

2. ““Despite the tendency in our federal courts toward extreme liberality in allowing amendments under Rules 4(h) and 15(a), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., the court is of the opinion that the effect of the amendment is to substitute for defendant an entirely new party. Unquestionably, plaintiffs attempted to bring suit against the owner of the Howard Johnson Restaurant in Uniontown. However, they named the wrong defendant. Ownership of the particular restaurant in question was not in the named corporate defendant, but in an individual and his wife. Clearly, this is not a case in which a plaintiff seeks to correct a misnomer where the proper party already is in court. See Sechrist v. Palshook, D.C.M.D. Pa.1951, 97 F.Supp. 505 . Neither of the individual defendants is in court. To permit this amendment to relate back to the original complaint would deprive the substituted defendants of their defense of the statute of limitations. Davis v. L. L. Cohen & Company, Inc., 1925, 268 U.S. 638 , 45 S.Ct. 633 , 69 L.Ed. 1129 ; Jacobsen v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa.1958, 160 F.Supp. 491 ; Lomax v. United States, D.C.E.D.Pa.1957, 155 F.Supp. 354 ; Kernel v. Rackmill, D.C.M.D.Pa.1953, 111 F.Supp. 150 ; Sanders v. Metzger, D.C.E.D.Pa.1946, 66 F.Supp. 262 . “The court is aware of the great hardship which will result from the granting of defendant’s motion. Nevertheless, this is a ,serious risk which must be appreciated by a plaintiff who delays until the period of limitations has almost run before co”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Baule