Sechrist v. Palshook

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]o hold otherwise would be unfair to Plaintiff and would allow the Defendant to avoid his rightful obligation through a technical error ... where the Defendant has had notice of the Plaintiffs claim from the outset.”
• an amendment which merely corrects the name of a party already in court should be allowed, but an amendment which has the effect of substituting a new party after the statute of limitations has run should not be allowed.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).