899 So. 2d 210 - Bracey v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “`[t]he standard for determining whether amendments qualify under Rule 15(c) is not simply an identity of transaction test; although not expressly mentioned in the rule, the courts also inquire into whether the opposing party has been put on notice regarding the claim or defense raised by the amended pleading.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 960 So. 2d 495 - Russell v. Ford Motor Co. · 946 So. 2d 335 - Bedford Health Prop. v. Estate of Williams

2. “[T]he Mississippi Supreme Court has noted in dicta that the same transaction or occurrence language means that the claims arise from `the same nucleus of common facts.' Kiddy v. Lipscomb, 628 So.2d 1355, 1357 (Miss.1993).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 960 So. 2d 495 - Russell v. Ford Motor Co. · 946 So. 2d 335 - Bedford Health Prop. v. Estate of Williams

3. “[w]henever 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.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 960 So. 2d 495 - Russell v. Ford Motor Co.