Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure; Statute Of Limitations; State Policy; Relation Back; Marshall V. Mulrenin, Gary I. Kruger
Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure; Statute Of Limitations; State Policy; Relation Back; Marshall V. Mulrenin, Gary I. Kruger
Akron Law Review
Some federal courts have followed the rule that amendments to correct misnomer or misdescription of a defendant will relate back where the proper defendant is in court. An amendment which substitutes or adds a new party, however, creates a new cause of action, and under such circumstances, there is normally no relation back to original filing for purposes of limitations.' Since the 1966 amendment of rule 15(c), however, a number of courts have permitted amendments substituting defendants after the statute of limitations has run.
In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment Of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O'Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., Eloise Lubbinge Mackus
In Rem Jurisdiction; Attachment Of Insurance Debts; State Statutes; O'Connorv. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., Eloise Lubbinge Mackus
Akron Law Review
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in O'Connor v. Lee-Hy Paving Corp., upheld New York's insurance attachment procedure which serves as a vehicle for gaining personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in causes of action that arise outside of New York. The court thereby determined that New York federal courts, in applying the procedures, had not violated defendant's due process because the minimum contacts requirement of the recent United Stated Supreme Court case, Shaffer v. Heitner, had been met.