Schiavone v. Fortune’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
534 federal appellate · 225 district · 235 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,648 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. (1988), Williamson v. United States (1994)
534 federal appellate · 225 district · 235 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedSchiavone v. Fortune (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Foman v. Davis · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Swift v. Tyson
Cited together with Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Cooper v. United States Postal Service · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Foman v. Davis · Conley v. Gibson
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 1,648 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.”
106 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him.”
80 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The linchpin is notice, and notice within the limitations period. Of course, there is an element of arbitrariness here, but that is a characteristic of any limitations period. And it is an arbitrariness imposed by the legislature and not by the judicial process.”
50 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.