Young v. Lepone’s Empirical Analysis
305 F.3d 1 · 2002
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 71 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Merck & Co. v. Reynolds (2010), Rodi v. Southern New England School of Law (2004)
26 federal appellate · 71 district · 1 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 Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Schiavone v. Fortune · Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor · Aulson v. Blanchard
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Relation back is dependent upon four factors, all of which must be satisfied: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As to defendants, identity of interest typically means that parties are “so closely related in their business operations or other activities that the institution of an action against one serves to provide notice of the litigation to the other.” ... The identity of interest requirement reflects this line of thought; it “ensures that the old and new plaintiffs are sufficiently related so that the new plaintiff was in effect involved in [the proceedings] unofficially from an early stage.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he amended complaint must arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading; there must be a sufficient identity of interest between the new plaintiff, the old plaintiff, and their respective claims so that the defendants can be said to have been given fair notice of the latecomer’s claim against them; and undue prejudice must be absent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.