Eaglesmith v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
73 F.3d 857 · 1995
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. Brown (1997), Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Education (2007)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Hafer v. Melo · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury · Spencer Gifts, Inc. v. Olitsky · Sikes v. Bancboston Mortgage Corp.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“new service within the statute of limitations is necessary in order to satisfy the due process requirement of notice when there is to be a change in the status of defendants.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when ... (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original pleading, or (3) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted if the foregoing provision (2) is satisfied and, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for service of the summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by the amendment (A) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (B) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowles v. Reade“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
1 later decision 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.