Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 477 SO2D 1227 - Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp.

Hebert v. Doctors Memorial Hosp.’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 2009

6 state decisions

30198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 434 So. 2d 1083 - Ray v. Alexandria Mall · 440 So. 2d 93 - Louviere v. Shell Oil Co. · Chalstrom v. Desselles · 433 So. 2d 289 - Valentine v. Thomas · Blanchard v. Farmer

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

  1. “(1) The amended claim must arise out of the same transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) The purported substitute defendant must have received notice of the institution of the action such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; (3) The purported substitute defendant must know or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party defendant, the action would have been brought against him; (4) The purported substitute defendant must not be a wholly new or unrelated defendant, since this would be tantamount to assertion of a new cause of action which would have otherwise prescribed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When the action or defense asserted in the amended petition or answer arises out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of filing the original pleading.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]rt. 1153 does not authorize the relation back of an amendment which merely adds a new defendant. Lowe v. Rivers, 448 So.2d 848, 850 (La.App. 2d Cir.1984) (citing McClendon v. Security Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 426, 428 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976)).”
    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.