declining to follow Schiavone interpretation of Rule 15(c) for sake of “uniformity”; holding that "within the period provided by law" means applicable statute of limitations plus time allowed for service of process
How later courts described this case
- declining to follow Schiavone interpretation of Rule 15(c) for sake of “uniformity”; holding that "within the period provided by law" means applicable statute of limitations plus time allowed for service of process
- noting that statutes of limitation are aimed at protecting defendants and courts from stale claims, and at protecting defendants from prolonged economic or psychological uncertainty
- rejecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal analog of Arizona Rule of Procedure 15(c), in part, because “[i]t conflict[ed] with established Arizona law”
- the purpose of the rule was “to aid those who had erred in identifying a defendant”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAMERON, Justice,
specially concurring:
I agree with the result but do not agree that the Hughes case needs to be reversed. In Hughes, supra, as the majority notes, there was no notice to the defendant, formal or informal, of the claim prior to the *469 running of the statute of limitations. McKinley, supra, also cited by the majority, relied on Hughes for the position taken in allowing a relation back in McKinley. As here, the defendant in McKinley had notice and was able to prepare a defense. Defendant was not prejudiced.
I believe Hughes is still good law.