Legal Opinion

Pan v. Bane

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided July 26, 2006No. 102,233PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmondson, J.

¶ 1 The question before us in this accelerated review is whether, under these circumstances, plaintiffs’ amendment to their petition adding a new party and a new theory of recovery after the expiration of the statute of limitations properly “relates back” under the provisions of 12 O.S.2001, § 2015(C), to the date the action was originally commenced. We find that it does and that the statute was correctly applied by the trial court. Certio-rari was previously granted on defendants’ petition to review the certified interlocutory order of the Tulsa County District Court and we affirm that…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department Of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  4. Cornwell v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
  5. TRW/Reda Pump v. BrewingtonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. YOUNG v. STATION 27, INC.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
  2. Wilson v. WebbSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
  3. ANAGNOST v. TOMECEKSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2017
  4. Roth v. Mercy Health Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
  5. State Ex Rel. Redman v. $122.44Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2010

20 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