Barkins v. International Inns, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
825 F.2d 905 · 1987
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001), Jacobsen v. Osborne (1998)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Schiavone v. Fortune · Marks v. Prattco, Inc. · Kirk v. Cronvich · Montalvo v. Tower Life Building · 592 F. Supp. 1052 - Morrison v. Lefevre
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.
“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence 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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the claim arose out of the same transaction or conduct described in the original complaint; (2) that the new party received notice in such a way as to not be prejudiced; (3) that the new party knew or “should have known” that the suit would have been brought against it but for a mistake; and (4) that the second and third requirements were met within the limitations period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although Holiday Inns [the named defendant] and International Inns [the proper defendant] are separate entities, it is clear that International Inns was aware of the suit against Holiday Inns through the shared counsel.”
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.