McCutcheon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2019
10 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 Fisher v. City of Berkeley · 72 Wis. 2d 282 - Lister v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System · 61 Ill. 2d 129 - Tom Olesker's Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. · Hartmann v. Time, Inc. · Gregoire v. G. P. Putnam's Sons
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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 the party to be brought in by amendment, that party (1) 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 (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 the party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Ely“Relation back is dependent upon four factors, all of which must be satisfied: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth 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 must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Siemion v. Rumfelt“The statute [of limitations in a defamation action] begins to run upon 'publication' of the allegedly defamatory statements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.