648 So. 2d 40 - Phillips v. Palumbo’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2010
7 state decisions
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 595 So. 2d 624 - Lima v. Schmidt · Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, Division of Hospitals · 607 So. 2d 532 - Bustamento v. Tucker · 439 So. 2d 437 - Gunter v. Plauche · Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleadings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Giroir v. South Louisiana Medical Center, 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985), the Louisiana Supreme Court established a four part [sic] test for determining whether | lfian amended petition adding a new plaintiff relates back under La. C.C.P. art. 1153. Giroir stated: [A]n amendment adding or substituting a plaintiff should be allowed to relate back if (1) the amended claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) the defendant either knew or should have known of the existence and involvement of the new plaintiff; (3) the new and the old plaintiffs are sufficiently related so that the added or substituted party is not wholly new or unrelated; (4) the defendant will not be prejudiced in preparing and conducting his defense. Id., 475 So.2d at 1044. In this case, it is undisputed that factors (1) and (3) of the Giroir test are satisfied. In addressing Giroir factor (2), Mrs. Palumbo argues that documents in the record show that defendants knew or should have known of her existence and involvement in Mr. Pa-lumbo’s case. State Farm does not directly refute Mrs. Palumbo’s contention that it was aware of her existence. State Farm argues, however, that even if it was aware of Mrs. Palumbo’s existence, it had no reason to believe that she would become involved in this case. In drawing a distinction between the terms “existence” and “involvement” in factor (2) of the Giroir test, State Farm’s argument spills over into the prejudicial ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the filing of a new cause of action by a new plaintiff long after prescription has run are all factors which weigh in favor of a conclusion that defendants will be prejudiced by allowing the amendment to relate back.”
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.