6 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phelps v. Wehr Constructors, Inc.green2 sentences2026Since Sanchez was not a party to the original action, we conclude that the one-year statute of limitations set forth in KRS 413.140(1)(a) for false imprisonment was not tolled for his claims. -14- As concerns the claims against Cash, the relation back rule, CR 15.03, “preserves an amended complaint from a defendant’s statute of limitations defense by treating the amendment as if it had been filed at the time of the original pleading.” Phelps v. Wehr Constructors, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 395, 396 (Ky. App. 2004). 2020Clearly, tension exists between a plaintiffs interest in the application of the relation back doctrine and the defendant’s interest in the statute of limitations. “[I]n order to maintain a proper balance between these competing interests, if a new party is to be added after the limitations period has run, then all three requirements of CR 15.03 must be strictly construed.” Phelps v. Wehr Constructors, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 395, 397 (Ky. App. 2004). | 3 | 3 |
Schwindel v. Meade Countygreen1 sentence2026To come within the purview of the relation back rule, it must be demonstrated: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period. -15- Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159, 169-70 (Ky. 2003) ( | 1 | 1 |
Schiavone v. Fortunered1 sentence2026To come within the purview of the relation back rule, it must be demonstrated: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period. -15- Schwindel v. Meade Cnty., 113 S.W.3d 159, 169-70 (Ky. 2003) ( | 1 | 1 |
Cabrera v. JBS USA, LLCgreen2 sentences2022Under tightly circumscribed “limited circumstances,” that doctrine “permits an untimely -10- amended complaint to relate back to the original complaint and to avoid a statute- of-limitations defense.” Cabrera v. JBS USA, LLC, 568 S.W.3d 865, 875 (Ky. App. 2019). 2022Id. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Currency Totalling $48,318.08, Philip A. Demassa, Intervenor-Appellantgreen1 sentence2005Compare United States v. Currency Totalling $48,318.08, 609 F.2d 210, 213 (5th Cir.1980) (doctrine of relation back did not apply where the statute was found to provide for only a possibility of subsequent forfeiture). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Perkins v. Read
neutral
1 sentence2012“The important consideration,” under CR 15.03(1), we explained, “is not whether the amended pleading presents a new claim or defense, but whether the amendment relates to the general factual situation which is the basis of the original controversy.” 756 S.W.2d at 460 (citing Perkins v. Read, 616 S.W.2d 495 (Ky.1981)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Underhill v. Stephenson
green
2 sentences2012Our case law construing the relation-back rule is sparse, but in Underhill v. Stephenson, 756 S.W.2d 459 (Ky.1988), a medical malpractice case, we held that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their complaint to bring in additional parties even after the limitations period had expired because the amended claims clearly arose from the same personal injury alleged in the original complaint. 2012“The important consideration,” under CR 15.03(1), we explained, “is not whether the amended pleading presents a new claim or defense, but whether the amendment relates to the general factual situation which is the basis of the original controversy.” 756 S.W.2d at 460 (citing Perkins v. Read, 616 S.W.2d 495 (Ky.1981)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Stowell
green
2 sentences2005The seminal case regarding the relation-back doctrine with respect to forfeitures is United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 244 , 33 L.Ed. 555 (1890), in which the United States Supreme Court addressed when the government’s rights would vest under the federal forfeiture statutes then in effect. 2005The seminal case regarding the relation-back doctrine with respect to forfeitures is United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 244 , 33 L.Ed. 555 (1890), in which the United States Supreme Court addressed when the government’s rights would vest under the federal forfeiture statutes then in effect. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.