Legal Opinion
Smith v. TW Services, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Decided August 19, 1991No. 3:90-0696PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
JOHN T. NIXON, Chief Judge.
The Court is in receipt of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation for the above-styled case to which an objec*145tion has been filed. Finding the objection to be without merit, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a party to be brought in by amendment must receive notice within the statute of limitations period, Shiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 29, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2384, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986). However, the notice required by Shiavone does not need to be formal. See Berndt v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of America v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two FirearmsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Richard Berndt v. State of Tennessee and Lakeshore Mental Health InstituteCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
- Julius Korn v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sidney Lundy Claire Lundy v. Adamar of New Jersey, Inc., T/a Trop World, Defendant/third Party v. Dr. Domenic Frank Carlino, Individually Dr. Domenic Frank Carlino, a Professional Association, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Polites v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
- Costello v. CaslerNevada Supreme Court · 2011
- Pargman v. VickersCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
- Phillips v. GieringerAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.