Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 So. 2d 302 - Chargois v. Fremin

430 So. 2d 302 - Chargois v. Fremin’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
April 1984
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 354 So. 2d 179 - Lushute v. Diesi · 390 So. 2d 1272 - Baker v. Payne & Keller of La., Inc. · Langlinais v. Guillotte · Andrepont v. Ochsner · 373 So. 2d 787 - Jones v. LeDay

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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"... Article 1153 requires only that the amending petition's thrust factually relate to the conduct, transaction or occurrence originally alleged. While the original petition did not mention lack of informed consent, the factual events during June 1976 of the consultations and defendant's advising plaintiff that surgery was necessary were explicitly set forth. The essence of interruption of prescription by suit is notice. Here, defendant had actual notice that judicial relief was being sought arising from that general factual situation of defendant's June 1977 conduct, and he thus was put on notice that his evidence concerning it should be collected and preserved. (Citations omitted). Both causes of action arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original petition. Plaintiff will not be held to a burden of separating out in his initial pleading the defendant's actions during that month's medical service merely because two theories of recovery are possible out of that factual setting. The amending petition did not elaborate at all on the factual setting, and no challenge to its sufficiency was made; the factual allegations made originally met the notice requirement to defendant under art. 1153. The transaction or occurrence giving rise to the demand or object of the suit remained unchanged by the amendment, and, even if the state of facts which constitute [sic] the defendant's wrong differ [sic] enough so that two causes of action exist, the facts ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.