41 F. Supp. 2d 1358 - Baird v. Celis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Based on the rule of Hanna , the Georgia expert affidavit requirement does not apply in this federal proceeding.... [T]he expert affidavit which requires specific allegations of negligence is in direct conflict with the notice pleading standard of Federal Rule 8(a).... Like the state law in Hanna , Georgia’s expert affidavit requirement creates a higher standard for plaintiffs seeking to initiate a particular type of action than the conflicting Federal Rule. Like the Massachusetts law in Hanna , the affidavit requirement reflects a substantive policy of the State of Georgia with respect to tort reform. Nonetheless, Rule 8(a) controls the Plaintiffs pleading burden in the instant case. “When, because the plaintiff happens to be a non-resident, ... [a state created] right is enforceable in a federal as well as in a State court, the forms and mode of enforcing the right may at times, naturally enough, vary because the two judicial systems are not identical.” Hanna, 380 U.S. at 473 , 85 S.Ct. 1136 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 411 F. Supp. 2d 701 - Long v. Adams