Britt v. Arvanitis’s Empirical Analysis
590 F.2d 57 · 1978
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Aslanidis v. United States Lines, Inc. (1993), Bryant v. Ford Motor Co. (1987)
15 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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 · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Farrell v. Votator Division of Chemetron Corp. · Varlack v. SWC Caribbean, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if ..., 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 · from the majority“defendant with the correct denomination did not add a new party to the action but rather constituted a mere substitution of names. 299 A.2d 397 . 25 At this juncture, it is noted that the view expressed by the New Jersey Supreme Court is in direct conflict with that related by this Court when construing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) in Varlack v. SWC Carribbean, Inc., 550 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1977) where we held: 26 Replacing a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as manufacturer of the wire sutures. Discovery elicited the name of Ethicon, Inc. as the manufacturer of the sutures, which information was given to plaintiff November 9, 1976. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated November 18, 1976, plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint and name Ethicon, Inc. in place of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Britt v. Arvanitis
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.