Toy v. Katz’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Fujimoto v. Au (2001), Estate of Nelson v. Rice (2000)
41 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
Relies on Orme School v. Reeves · China Everbright Trading Co. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc. · Eddy v. Hess · Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland · China Everbright Trading Co. v. Timber Falling Consultants, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, although the trial court expressly found that the Corporation was the real party in interest, the court ignored the plain language of Rule 17 and erred in ruling that the amendment adding the Corporation did not relate back. This ease presents the precise factual scenario for which the above provision of Rule 17(a) was created. “The provision is intended to prevent forfeiture when determination of the proper party to sue is difficult or when an understandable mistake has been made.” State Bar Committee Note at 169. In this case, because the Toys had been identified as the sellers, them counsel named the Toys as the plaintiffs in the Business Litigation. During discovery in the underlying litigation, it became apparent that the assets [at issue] belonged to the Corporation. The Toys maintain that fact was obscured by Katz’s alleged negligence in misidentifying them in the sale transaction documents. Under these circumstances, Rule 17(a) permits relation back of the amended complaint and the addition of the Corporation as a plaintiff. See Watts[ v. State ], ... 115 Ariz. 545 , 566 P.2d [693,] 695-96 [ (Ct.App.1977) ]; Hess v. Eddy, 689 F.2d 977, 980 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1118 , 103 S.Ct. 3085 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1347 (1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fujimoto v. Au“To test whether a trial court has abused its discretion, we must determine not whether we might have so acted under the circumstances, but whether the lower court exceeded the bounds of reason by performing the challenged act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.