Robert Garcia v. Douglas E. Hall and Danny L. Mangus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “defendants would not be prejudiced in their defense of this action by changing the named plaintiff” because “they knew the persons and the issues involved”
• stating that defendants would not be prejudiced by changing named plaintiff because “[t]hey knew the persons and the issues involved before the statute of limitations ran”
• stating that defendants would not be prejudiced by changing named plaintiff because “[t]hey knew the persons and the issues involved before the statute of limitations ran”
• if an insurance provider has made only a partial reimbursement, both the insurer and the insured are real parties in interest
• where the subrogee insurance company had actually instituted the suit in the name of the insured for the entire loss in accordance with substantive state law
• “The defendants would not be prejudiced in their defense of this action by changing the named plaintiff. They knew the persons and the issues involved before the statute of limitations ran.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).