Whalen v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
95 F. 305 · 1899
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 1980 · most notably York v. Guaranty Trust Co. (1944), International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co. (1941)
24 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Union Pac Ry Co v. Wyler · Robb v. Vos · Scovill v. Glasner · Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Jones
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An amendment to a petition which sets up no new cause of action or ■claim, and makes no new demand, but simply varies or expands the allegations in support of the cause of action already propounded, relates back to the ■commencement of the action, and the running of the statute against the claim ■so pleaded is arrested at that point. But an amendment which introduces a new or different cause of action, and makes a new or different demand, not before introduced or made in the pending suit, does not relate back to the beginning of the action, so as to stop the running of the statute, but is the equivalent of a fresh suit upon a new cause of action, and the statute continues to run until the amendment is filed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legal principles by which this question must he solved are those which belong to the law of departure, since the rules which govern this subject afford the true criterion by which to determine the question whether there is a new cause of action in case of an amendment. In many of the states which have adopted the code system great latitude has been allowed in regard to amendment ; but even in those states it is held that the question of what constitutes a departure in an amended pleading is nevertheless to be determined by the rules of common law, which thus furnish the test for ascertaining whether a given amendment presents a new cause of action even although it he permissible to advance such new cause [of action] by way of an amendment. * * « ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“•‘An amendment to a petition which sets np no new cause of action or claim, and makes no new demand, but simply varies or expands the allegations in support of the cause of action already propounded, relates back to the commencement of the action, and the running of the statute against the claim so pleaded is arrested at that point. But an amendment which introduces a new or different * * * demand, not before introduced or made in the pending suit, does not relate hack to the beginning of the action, so as to stop the running of the statute, but is the equivalent of a, fresh suit upon a new cause of action, and the statute continues to run until the amendment is filed.””
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.