Opinion ID: 2610891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedural Uniformity

Text: Having noted the policies served by the rules governing relation back of amendments and those served by statutes of limitations, we turn to the question of uniformity. If the Schiavone rule had come from the court of a sister state, we would accept it only after examining its logic, its effect on the policies embodied in our rules and statutes, and its inherent consistency with Arizona law and practice. However, Schiavone is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, interpreting the federal analog of the Arizona rule. In relying on Schiavone, the court of appeals stressed the need for Arizona courts to follow federal precedent. Memo dec. at 17-18. We agree that procedural uniformity on a national scale is a generally desirable goal to which state courts aspire. Harbel Oil Co. v. Steele, 80 Ariz. 368, 374, 298 P.2d 789, 792 (1956). Nonetheless, blind devotion to federal interpretation is not required; we need not follow the federal cases if we believe Arizona policy, practice, or case law requires a different result. Id. Bearing in mind the substantive policies served by Rule 15(c), together with the need for uniformity, and its exceptions in interpreting the rules, we now examine the rule's substantive requirements for relation back.