Weisgal v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
774 F.2d 1277 · 1985
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Keller v. Prince George's County (1991), Quann v. Whitegate-Edgewater (1986)
11 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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. § 2401 · 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Mohasco Corp. v. Silver · Cooper v. United States Postal Service · Cooper v. U.S. Postal Service
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Relation Back of Amendments. 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 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 the party. The delivery or mailing of process to the United States Attorney, or the United States Attorney’s designee, or the Attorney General of the United States, or an agency or officer who would have been a proper defendant if named, satisfies the requirement of clauses (1) and (2) hereof with respect to the United States or any agency or officer thereof to be brought into the action as a defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, ... relate[ ] back to the date of the original pleading,”
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.