Thomas v. Grayson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The subsequent adoption of Rules 15(c) and 17(a), SCRP allow for the relation back of an amendment to the complaint to assert the qualification in South Carolina of the ... personal representative in an action which was otherwise untimely. While our older cases answered this question negatively, our present Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c) and 17(a) require that such a pleading now be permitted. The rationale of the older cases was based on the idea that a change in plaintiffs capacity to sue was tantamount to bringing a new cause of action. The rule does not defeat the legitimate use of the statute of limita tions. It however, prevents the defendant from defeating the plaintiffs claim on a technicality in the pleading. We find that relation back of an amendment to assert the qualification under South Carolina law can be allowed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 333 F. Supp. 2d 488 - Dawson Ex Rel. Estate of Dawson v. United States

2. ““[A]ny revision of the wrongful-death statute, § 6-5-410, to provide for the possibility of the invocation of the relation-back doctrine, or any other savings provision, is within the wisdom and re sponsibility of the legislature and not a task for this Court. See, e.g., Thomas v. Grayson, 818 S.C. 82 , 86, 456 S.E.2d 377, 379 (1995)(‘The rule prohibiting an amendment to relate back was established when the period of limitation was a part of the wrongful death act. The limitation period has been moved from the wrongful death act to the general statute for limitation of civil actions. § 16—8—530(6)[, Ala.Code 1975]. This change indicates a legislative intent to no longer consider it a condition precedent to a wrongful death action, but rather a statute of limitations that would allow the relation back of an amendment.’).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Northstar Anesthesia of Alabama, LLC v. Noble

3. “The test to be used in determining whether or not an amendment should be allowed to relate back under Rule 15(c) to the date of the original pleading to avoid the statute of limitations, is found in the language of the Rule; specifically, whether the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitfield Construction Co. v. Bank of Tokyo Trust Co.