Longbottom v. Swaby’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 45 · 1968
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Woods Exploration & Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America (1971), Williams v. United States (1968)
25 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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 Hanna v. Plumer · Levy v. Louisiana Ex Rel. Charity Hospital · Missouri Kansas Texas Pailway Company v. Sallie C Wulf · Barthel v. Stamm · Duval v. Hunt
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of [Rule 15(c)] is accomplished if the initial complaint gives the defendant fair notice that litigation is arising out of a specific factual situation.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Change in description of the capacity of the plaintiff after the [statute of] limitation period has expired has been allowed in a variety of situations.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [R] elation back is properly a question of federal practice under Rule 15(c), and the issue of whether an amendment will relate back should not be determined by resort to state law even in a nonfederal action, but should be decided in terms of Rule 15(c). “While it is a general rule that an amendment which introduces an entirely new claim for relief will not relate back to the date of the original pleading, Rule 15(c) is not limited by the ‘cause of action’ concept, and an amendment which injects a new legal theory, within the scope of the original claim for relief, or adds another claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading should relate back under the terms of Rule 15(c).” Moore, Federal Practice, § 15.15[3],”
2 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.