Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Farmer v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Farmer v. State, 788 P.2d 43, 47 (Alaska 1990) (holding that "the touchstone of the relation back doctrine is fairness" and a new party must have "fair notice of the cause of action, within the prescribed statutory period, such that the party's rights will not be prejudiced"). 66 . 1992We have previously held that where the plaintiff knew the defendant's identity, but merely neglected to add that defendant to his original complaint, "the relation back doctrine and the imputed notice doctrine are extremely limited, if applicable at all." Farmer v. State, 788 P.2d 43, 49 (Alaska 1990). | 3 | 3 |
Breck v. Ulmergreen1 sentence2021See Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987). 10 Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 360 P.3d 79, 84 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Brotherton v. Brotherton, 142 P.3d 1187, 1189 (Alaska 2006)). -5- 1847 Rule 15(c)’s requirements for relation back.”11 The statute of limitations for excessive force claims under either federal or state law is two years.12 Mulligan’s action for excessive force accrued when the force was applied on April 17, 2017,13 so the latest date Mulligan could have filed her excessive force claim was April 17, 2019. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen1 sentence2021See Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987). 10 Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 360 P.3d 79, 84 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Brotherton v. Brotherton, 142 P.3d 1187, 1189 (Alaska 2006)). -5- 1847 Rule 15(c)’s requirements for relation back.”11 The statute of limitations for excessive force claims under either federal or state law is two years.12 Mulligan’s action for excessive force accrued when the force was applied on April 17, 2017,13 so the latest date Mulligan could have filed her excessive force claim was April 17, 2019. | 1 | 1 |
Brotherton v. Brothertongreen1 sentence2021See Breck v. Ulmer, 745 P.2d 66, 75 (Alaska 1987). 10 Richardson v. Municipality of Anchorage, 360 P.3d 79, 84 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Brotherton v. Brotherton, 142 P.3d 1187, 1189 (Alaska 2006)). -5- 1847 Rule 15(c)’s requirements for relation back.”11 The statute of limitations for excessive force claims under either federal or state law is two years.12 Mulligan’s action for excessive force accrued when the force was applied on April 17, 2017,13 so the latest date Mulligan could have filed her excessive force claim was April 17, 2019. | 1 | 1 |
Hallam v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.green1 sentence2016Hallam v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 91 P.3d 279, 283 (Alaska 2004). 9 , Sellers argues that Stroud waived this argument by failing to raise it below. | 1 | 1 |
Zina Butler v. Housing Auth. County of Lagreen1 sentence2016See Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2014) (Likewise, we review the district court's application of the relation-back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) de novo."); Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 , 1132 n.8 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing between standards of review for denial of a motion to amend and denial of relation back once leave to amend is granted). 8 . | 1 | 1 |
Breck v. Mooregreen1 sentence2015See, eg., Phillips v. Gieringer, 108 P.3d 889, 893 (Alaska 2005) (discussing constructive notice and the relation back doctrine); Breck v. Moore, 910 P.2d 599, 604-05 (Alaska 1996) (holding that plaintiffs were on constructive notice of information known .or that should have been known to the plaintiffs' attorney). | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Gieringergreen1 sentence2015See, eg., Phillips v. Gieringer, 108 P.3d 889, 893 (Alaska 2005) (discussing constructive notice and the relation back doctrine); Breck v. Moore, 910 P.2d 599, 604-05 (Alaska 1996) (holding that plaintiffs were on constructive notice of information known .or that should have been known to the plaintiffs' attorney). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Thompson v. Mercedes-Benz, Inc.green1 sentence1987Estate of Thompson v. Mercedes-Benz, Inc., 514 P.2d 1269, 1273 (Alaska 1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Boeing Co.
green
1 sentence2016See Butler v. Nat'l Cmty. Renaissance of Cal., 766 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 2014) (Likewise, we review the district court's application of the relation-back doctrine under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) de novo."); Williams v. Boeing Co., 517 F.3d 1120 , 1132 n.8 (9th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing between standards of review for denial of a motion to amend and denial of relation back once leave to amend is granted). 8 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McCutcheon v. State
green
2 sentences1992Rumfelt notes that a strict interpretation of the mistaken identity requirement was recently reaffirmed by this court in Farmer v. State, 788 P.2d 43 (Alaska 1990) in discussing McCutcheon v. State, 746 P.2d 461 (Alaska 1987): McCutcheon is not applicable to the issues in this case. 1992Rumfelt notes that a strict interpretation of the mistaken identity requirement was recently reaffirmed by this court in Farmer v. State, 788 P.2d 43 (Alaska 1990) in discussing McCutcheon v. State, 746 P.2d 461 (Alaska 1987): McCutcheon is not applicable to the issues in this case. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Atkins v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co. of Canada
green
2 sentences1992"A tactical decision, for instance, to omit a possible defendant bars the application of the relation back doctrine when a claim is later added against the omitted party." Id. 1992“A tactical decision, for instance, to omit a possible defendant bars the application of the relation back doctrine when a claim is later added against the omitted party.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Schiavone v. Fortune
red
2 sentences1990Id. at 29 , 106 S.Ct. at 2384 . 1990Id. at 29 , 106 S.Ct. at 2384 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Gutierrez v. Raymond International Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Gutierrez v. Raymond International, 86 F.R.D. 684 (S.D.Tex.1980). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.