Hogan v. Fischer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “(1) the claim must have arisen out of conduct set out 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 should have known that, but for a mistake of identity, the original action would have been brought against it; and ... [4] the second and third criteria are fulfilled within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint, and ... the original complaint [was] filed within the limitations period.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ceara v. Deacon · Cruz v. City of New York

2. “A party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Suffolk Cnty. · Neal v. Wilson

3. “[a]n amendment ... relates back ... when the law that provides the applicable statute of limitations allows relation back”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lin v. Joedy · Williams v. Suffolk Cnty.