Legal Opinion

Cecil v. Cottrill

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 22, 1993No. 92-1216PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

The issue presented is whether Civ.R. 15(C), read in pari materia with Civ.R. 3(A) and 15(A), allows appellants’ second amended complaint, regarding Donna’s personal injury claim,3 to relate back to the time of the filing of the original complaint on September 5, 1989.

Civ.R. 15(C) provides in part:

“Relation Back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Hardesty v. CabotageOhio Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Kraly v. VannewkirkOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Crossman Communities of Ohio, Inc. v. Greene County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Dobbelaere v. Cosco, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. Mollette v. Portsmouth City CouncilOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Noe v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals · 2000

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API