Crossman v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably State v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLC (2008), State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands (2008)
2 federal appellate · 59 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 Schiavone v. Fortune · Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc. · 14 N.C. App. 736 - Teague v. Asheboro Motor Company · 96 N.C. App. 277 - Ring Drug Co. v. Carolina Medicorp Enterprises, Inc. · 82 N.C. App. 350 - Stevens v. Nimocks
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a matter of course, the original claim cannot give notice of the transactions or occurrences to be proved in the amended pleading to a defendant who is not aware of his status as such when the original claim is filed. We hold that this rule [N.C.R. Civ. P. 15(c)] does not apply to the naming of a new party-defendant to the action. It is not authority for the relation back of a claim against a new party.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“A claim asserted in an amended pleading is deemed to have been interposed at the time the claim in the original pleading was interposed, unless the original pleading does not give notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, to be proved pursuant to the amended pleading.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Ring . . . the Court of Appeals allowed an amendment naming a new party to relate back to the filing of the complaint. We overrule the holding in Ring, and do not approve of the rationale of the other three cases so far as they are inconsistent with the reasoning of this opinion.”
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.