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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. Agreen2 sentences2016Id. at 549 (emphasis supplied). ¶38 Most importantly in this new analysis, the Court explained both the public policy and the history behind the relation back rule. 2016A prospective defendant who “legitimately believed that the limitations period had passed . . . has a strong interest in repose,” but repose “would be a windfall for a prospective defendant who understood, or who should have understood, that he escaped suit during the limitations period only because the plaintiff misunderstood a crucial fact about his identity.” Id. ¶39 To drive this point home, the Court next explained the legislative history of the relation back rule. | 1 | 1 |
Lo v. Millsgreen2 sentences2016Because Taxpayer did not make “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” as Rule 15(c) requires for relation back, the tax court erred in permitting Taxpayer’s 2013 amended complaint to relate back. ¶21 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the claim asserted in the amendment “arose out of the [same] conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” The relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c), like the federal rule upon which it is modeled, balances a plaintiff’s right to a decision on the merits “despite procedural or te 2016Because Taxpayer did not make “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” as Rule 15(c) requires for relation back, the tax court erred in permitting Taxpayer’s 2013 amended complaint to relate back. ¶21 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the claim asserted in the amendment “arose out of the [same] conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” The relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c), like the federal rule upon which it is modeled, balances a plaintiff’s right to a decision on the merits “despite procedural or te | 1 | 1 |
Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Ridesgreen2 sentences2004See Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides, 165 Ariz. 460, 464 , 799 P.2d 801, 805 (1990). 8 In the context of adding or changing a party, the doctrine protects the to-be-added defendant by barring its addition unless the plaintiff proves notice, knowledge and timeliness. ¶24 First, the plaintiff must show that the party “to be brought in” received notice of the “institution,” that is, filing, of the action so that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits. 2004See Ritchie v. Grand Canyon Scenic Rides, 165 Ariz. 460, 464 , 799 P.2d 801, 805 (1990). 8 In the context of adding or changing a party, the doctrine protects the to-be-added defendant by barring its addition unless the plaintiff proves notice, knowledge and timeliness. ¶24 First, the plaintiff must show that the party “to be brought in” received notice of the “institution,” that is, filing, of the action so that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. SUPERIOR COURT, MARICOPA CTY.green2 sentences1994See Marshall v. Superior Ct., 131 Ariz. 379, 383 , 641 P.2d 867, 871 (1982) (change in legal theory does not prevent relation back if factual situation remains the same). 1994See Marshall v. Superior Ct., 131 Ariz. 379, 383 , 641 P.2d 867, 871 (1982) (change in legal theory does not prevent relation back if factual situation remains the same). | 1 | 1 |
Wooldridge Construction Co. v. First National Bankgreen2 sentences1988See Wooldridge Construction Co. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 130 Ariz. 86 , 634 P.2d 13 (App.1981) (“turnkey” preparation work at construction site gave general contractor priority). 1988See Wooldridge Construction Co. v. First National Bank of Arizona, 130 Ariz. 86 , 634 P.2d 13 (App.1981) (“turnkey” preparation work at construction site gave general contractor priority). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United Pacific Insurance v. Cottonwood Properties, Inc.green2 sentences1988But see United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Cottonwood Properties, Inc., 156 Ariz. 149 , 750 P.2d 907 (App.1987) (a mechanic’s lien which has expired because no action was- filed within the six months’ limitation period of A.R.S. § 33-998 cannot be revived by the relation-back doctrine of Rule 15, Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.). 1988But see United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Cottonwood Properties, Inc., 156 Ariz. 149 , 750 P.2d 907 (App.1987) (a mechanic’s lien which has expired because no action was- filed within the six months’ limitation period of A.R.S. § 33-998 cannot be revived by the relation-back doctrine of Rule 15, Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pargman v. Vickers
green
2 sentences2016Because Taxpayer did not make “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” as Rule 15(c) requires for relation back, the tax court erred in permitting Taxpayer’s 2013 amended complaint to relate back. ¶21 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the claim asserted in the amendment “arose out of the [same] conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” The relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c), like the federal rule upon which it is modeled, balances a plaintiff’s right to a decision on the merits “despite procedural or te 2016Because Taxpayer did not make “a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” as Rule 15(c) requires for relation back, the tax court erred in permitting Taxpayer’s 2013 amended complaint to relate back. ¶21 Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amendment to relate back to the date of the original pleading if the claim asserted in the amendment “arose out of the [same] conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” The relation back doctrine of Rule 15(c), like the federal rule upon which it is modeled, balances a plaintiff’s right to a decision on the merits “despite procedural or te | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hamilton v. Blackman
green
1 sentence2004These courts have recognized that, as a practical matter, the insurer is the real party in interest and unless it or the estate is prejudiced by the amendment, there is no unfairness in allowing relation back. ¶ 36 For example, in Hamilton v. Blackman, 915 P.2d 1210 (Alaska 1996), the plaintiffs were involved in a car accident. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Desmond v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1991Williams filed a motion to suppress his BAC results, alleging that the state could not satisfy the relation back requirement of Desmond v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 522 , 779 P.2d 1261 (1989), i.e., that the evidence of his GCI could not be accurately used to determine his BAC at the time of driving. 1991Williams filed a motion to suppress his BAC results, alleging that the state could not satisfy the relation back requirement of Desmond v. Superior Court, 161 Ariz. 522 , 779 P.2d 1261 (1989), i.e., that the evidence of his GCI could not be accurately used to determine his BAC at the time of driving. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wahl v. Southwest Savings & Loan Association
green
2 sentences1981Similarly, this court in Wahl v. Southwest Savings & Loan Assn., 12 Ariz.App. 90 , 467 P.2d 930 (1970), considered the relation-back doctrine under A.R.S. § 33-992, not the question of labor commencement presently before us. 1981Similarly, this court in Wahl v. Southwest Savings & Loan Assn., 12 Ariz.App. 90 , 467 P.2d 930 (1970), considered the relation-back doctrine under A.R.S. § 33-992, not the question of labor commencement presently before us. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.