University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio v. Bailey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that misnomer doctrine did not apply where plaintiffs “did not misname or misidentify their defendant; they sued exactly whom they intended to sue”
• holding that a governmental employer may be substituted for the employee under subsection (f) after limitations has run because there is “no change in the real party in interest”
• holding, unless an exception applies, an amended pleading adding new party does not relate back to the original pleading.
• noting that trial court gave deadline to Baileys to amend pleadings, and after employer answered suit, trial court issued order dismissing employee and severed him from case
• observing that “an amended pleading adding a new party does not relate back to the original pleading” unless an exception applies (quoting Alexander v. Turtur & Assoc., Inc., 146 S.W.3d 113, 121 (Tex. 2004))
• discussing relation-back doctrine and observing that ordinarily adding new party in amended pleading does not relate back to original proceeding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).