green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
47.3 score
“although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the legal theories of recovery were supplemented and modified, the substantive factual situation remained the same as that found in the original complaint.”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Leon Kopel v. Bernardo Kopel
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, and the legal theories of recovery were supplemented and modified, the substantive factual situation remained the same as that found in the original complaint.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Armiger v. Associated Outdoor Clubs, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
to survive a motion to dismiss after the statute of limitations has passed, an amended complaint must relate back to the original pleading made before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mishiyev v. Davis, Beasley Media Group, LLC
Bd. v. Doe, 210 So. 3d 41, 47 (Fla. 2017) ("Although additional allegations of fact were inserted into the complaint as it progressed through its steps, 13 and the legal theories of recovery were supplemented and modified, the substantive factual situation remained the same as that found in the original complaint . . . ." (quoting Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010))). 3.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ODALYS HERRERA v. JARDEN CORPORATION, TONYA JARVIS and JOHN CAPPS
“The test is whether ‘the original pleading gives fair 4 notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.’” Kalmanowitz v. Amerada Hess Corp., 125 So. 3d 836, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)); see also Janie Doe 1 ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelly Mitchell v. Applebee's Services, Inc.
School Bd. v. Doe 1, 210 So. 3d 41, 44 (Fla. 2017) (footnotes omitted) (citing Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Flores v. Risomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Halveland, individually etc. v. Florida Department of Corrections, etc.
This is true even where the legal theory of recovery has changed or where the original and amended claims require the assertion of different elements.” Id. at 816 (approving Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., 35 So. 3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Palm Beach County School Board, etc. v. Janie Doe 1, etc.
(2×)
Caduceus Properties, LLC v. Graney, 137 So.3d 987, 991 (Fla. 2014); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anderson v. Epstein
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
This Court has stated that the proper test of relation back of amendments is not whether the cause of action stated in the amended complaint is identical to that stated in the original, but “whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.’ ” Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Townes v. National Deaf Academy, LLC
Additionally, since the ordinary negligence claim of the original complaint requires consideration of the entire time Perry spent at NDA, the original complaint provides NDA with “fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.” Kalmanowitz v. Amerada Hess Corp., 125 So.3d 836, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Engle Cases
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Under that standard, a complaint could relate back under a much broader set of circumstances: any situation in which the “amendment shows the same general factual situation as that alleged in the original pleading.” 5 Armiger v. Associated Out door Clubs, Inc., 48 So.3d 864, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Keel v. Brown, 162 So.2d 321, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), overruled on other grounds by Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So.2d 513 (Fla.1970)); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“We have articulated the test to be whether ‘the original ple…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Roden v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
(3×)
“To survive a motion to dismiss after the statute of limitations has passed, an amended complaint must relate back to the original pleading made before the expiration of the statute of limitations.” Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mender v. Kauderer, Etc.
In Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), this Court explained, “We have articulated the test to be whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises,’ ” and that “[t]he [relation back] doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends.” See also Caduceus Props., LLC v. Graney, 137 So.3d 987 (Fla.2014) (same), and cases cited therein.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Caduceus Properties, LLC v. William G. Graney, P.E.
See, e.g., Fabbiano v. Demings, 91 So.3d 893, 894-95 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (explaining that the relation-back rule is to be liberally interpreted and acknowledging that the underlying “rationale for this rule is grounded in the notion of fair notice”); Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining that the relation-back doctrine is to be liberally applied and articulating “the test to be whether ‘the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises’ ” (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of St. Petersburg v. Henderson
Id. (citing Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kalmanowitz v. Amerada Hess Corp.
The test is whether “the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises.” Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kirkpatrick v. Hubman
(2×)
See Flores v. 7 Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So. 3d 146, 147 (Fla. Dist.
cited
Cited "see"
Janie Doe 1 ex rel. Miranda v. Sinrod
See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fabbiano v. Demings
See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147-48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (providing that test for whether amendment relates back is whether original pleading gave defendant fair notice of “general fact situation” basis of new claim); Brown v. Wood, 202 So.2d 125, 128 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (same); see also 6A Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1497 (3d ed.2011) (explaining one theory for relation-back rule is “ ‘[w]hen a suit is filed ... the defendant knows that the whole transaction described in it will be fully sifted, by amendment if need be, and that the…
cited
Cited "see"
In Re 1992 Pontiac Firebird
See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
cited
Cited "see"
Floyd v. State ex rel. City of Haines City
See Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of Eisen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
See e.g., Flores v. Riscomp Indus., Inc., 35 So.3d 146, 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding the relation-back doctrine is to be applied liberally to achieve its salutary ends, and articulating the test to be whether “ ‘the original pleading gives fan- notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises’ ”) (quoting Kiehl v. Brown, 546 So.2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)); R.A.
Calvin JONES, Petitioner,
v.
the STATE of Florida, Respondent
v.
the STATE of Florida, Respondent
3D09-1196.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 26, 2010.
Calvin Jones, in proper person., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Rothenberg, Lagoa, Salter.
Published
The defendant seeks habeas corpus relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The defendant claims that appellate counsel failed to raise, and should have raised on appeal, that the sentence imposed by the trial court after the defendant violated his probation was vindictive. A review of both the original sentencing transcript placing the defendant on probation and the transcript regarding the subsequent probation violation hearing, however, conclusively refutes any claim of vindictive sentencing. Because appellate counsel cannot be faulted for failing to file a meritless claim, we deny the petition. See Henyard v. State, 883 So.2d 753, 764 (Fla.2004); Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000) (holding that “[i]f a legal issue ‘would in all probability have been found to be without merit’ had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, the failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel’s performance ineffective”).
Petition denied.