Barnhart v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “a complaint in negligence which designates as a sole defendant one who died after the cause of action accrued but before the complaint was filed has neither met the requirements of the applicable statute of limitations, nor commenced an action pursuant to Civ.R. 3(A) and such complaint may not be amended to substitute an administrator of the deceased defendant's estate for the original defendant after the limitations period has expired . . .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Whitley v. River's Bend Health Care · Marcinko v. Carson, Unpublished Decision (7-14-2004)

2. ““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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Varno v. Bally Manufacturing Co. · Eberbach v. McNabney

3. ““Although Civ. R. 15(C) provides for the relation back of amendments to an original complaint, the rule cannot be applied in the instant cause because there was no complaint against an existing party for the amended complaint to relate back to. The general rule is that ‘where an action is brought against a defendant who is dead * * * the complaint may not be amended, after the period of the statute of limitations has expired, so as to bring in a defendant having the capacity to be sued.’ Annotation, 8 A.L.R. 2d 6 , supra, at page 118. The reason for such a rule is self-evident. There can be no amendment ‘when there is nothing to amend.’ Thompson v. Peck, supra, at page 598.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Ohio App. 3d 55 - Gentile v. Carr