Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 675 So. 2d 720 - Pendleton v. Barrett

675 So. 2d 720 - Pendleton v. Barrett’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

27 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gonzales v. Xerox Corp. · 359 So. 2d 1256 - Everett v. Goldman · 633 So. 2d 1210 - Kelty v. Brumfield · Sewell v. Doctors Hosp. · 561 So. 2d 1371 - Stuka v. Fleming

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

  1. “We now conclude that the legislative intent of "liability" in Section 1299.44 C(5) was that the payment of $100,000 in settlement establishes proof of liability for the malpractice and for damages of at least $100,000 resulting from the malpractice, which is a very significant benefit to the medical malpractice victim. However, at the trial against the Fund, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the admitted malpractice caused damages in excess of $100,000.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “In approving a settlement or determining the amount, if any, to be paid from the patient's compensation fund, the court shall consider the liability of the health care provider as admitted and established where the insurer has paid its policy limits of one hundred thousand dollars, or where the self-insured health care provider has paid one hundred thousand dollars.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hen a health care provider admits and establishes liability by payment of $100,000 under the Medical Malpractice Act, under La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C)(5), claimant is relieved of the obligation to prove a causal connection between the admitted malpractice and claimant's original and primary harm. However, if claimant is asserting claims for secondary damages, then he has the burden, notwithstanding admitted liability by virtue of the $100,000 settlement and La.R.S. 40:1299.44(C)(5), to prove that this secondary harm was caused by the medical negligence.”
    2 later decisions 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.