Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 859 SW2D 758 - Tyson v. Dixon

Tyson v. Dixon’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2014

5 state decisions

30199320002010decided

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 Sanders v. Daniel International Corp. · Norton v. International Harvester Co. · American Bank of Princeton v. Stiles · Hoey v. St. Luke's Episcopal Presbyterian Hospital · Bates v. Law Firm of Dysart, Taylor, Penner, Lay & Lewandowski

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

  1. “(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 and serving notice of the action, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action as will not prejudice the party in maintaining the party’s 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
  2. “An amendment does not relate back to the date of the original filing where the plaintiff had notice before the running of the statute of limitations that the party in question was a potential defendant. “Rule 55.33(c) was not designed to afford protection to a plaintiff who had notice of the identity and potential liability of the proper party defendant before the statute of limitations expired, yet failed to timely bring the party into the action.””
    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.