Kirk v. Cronvich’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.2d 404 · 1980
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Schiavone v. Fortune (1986), Cooper v. United States Postal Service (1985)
39 federal appellate · 9 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. United States · Lavellee v. Listi · Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation · Marks v. Prattco, Inc. · Ingram v. Kumar
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “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”; (2) “The party to be brought in by amendment ... has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits”; and (3) “The party to be' brought in by amendment .. . 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.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although on its face the phrase, ‘within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him,’ seems to mean the applicable statute of limitations period, such a literal interpretation is unjustified in jurisdictions where timely service of process can be effected after the statute of limitations has run. In those jurisdictions, even an accurately named defendant may not receive actual notice of the action against him prior to the running of the statute of limitations. Yet there is no doubt that the action against him is timely commenced. There is no reason why a misnamed defendant is entitled to earlier notice than he would have received had the complaint named him correctly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since the effect of Rule 15(c) is to avoid the impact of the statute-of limitations, the sufficiency of the notice must be evaluated in light of the policy objectives of the statute of limitations, i.e., to avoid undue surprise, to permit investigation and collect evidence while it is fresh and other considerations.”
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.