Sonnier v. Talley’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
January 2009
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 553 So. 2d 79 - Gray v. Reynolds · 338 So. 2d 1269 - National Dist. & Chem. v. American Laubscher Corp. · Ex Parte Sonnier · 384 So. 2d 633 - Sharpe v. State · Talley v. Sonnier
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]his analysis does not completely resolve the question whether Talley's later-filed misrepresentation claims may relate back to the date of her original complaint. Rule 15(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., which allows relation back of amendments, states in pertinent part: `An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when... (2) the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading....' Regarding Rule 15(c), this Court has quoted the following with approval: "`"Rule 15(c) is based on the concept that a party who is notified of litigation concerning a given transaction or occurrence has been given all of the notice that statutes of limitation are intended to afford. Thus, if the original pleading gives fair notice of the general fact situation out of which the claim or defense arises, an amendment which merely makes more specific what has already been alleged, such as by specifying particular acts of negligence under a general allegation of negligence, or remedies a defective pleading, will relate back even though the statute of limitations has run in the interim. Similarly, while it is still the rule that an amendment which states an entirely new claim for relief based on different facts will not relate back, if the pleading sufficiently indicates the transaction or occurrence on which the claim or defense is based, amendments correcting ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Talley's original complaint contained three counts, the first of which was a general count alleging negligence and malpractice against Dr. Sonnier in regard to his rendering medical care and treatment to Talley from June 1990 through, and including, October 1991. Thus, Talley alleged general negligence and malpractice in her original complaint arising out of and related to Dr. Sonnier's medical treatment of her during the period specified therein. This period included the months following Talley's surgery. "In her amended complaint, Talley restated the allegations contained in her original complaint and added allegations that, during the months following her surgery, Dr. Sonnier and Dr. van der Meer [a codefendant] made misrepresentations of fact regarding her purported cancer, the need she was supposed to have had for a hysterectomy, and the need for her to return for medical care to avoid a recurrence of cancer. Thus, Talley's amended complaint may be construed to state claims of negligence and malpractice arising out of, and related to, the medical care provided to her after the surgery. "As recognized in National Distillers, supra (quoting Moore's Federal Practice ), `”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"[ Ex parte Sonnier ] did not hold that all of the claims asserted in the Talleys' original complaint were time barred. Rather, the [ Ex parte Sonnier ] Court specifically held that Talley's claims relating to the hysterectomy itself and any claims arising out of events or actions preceding the date of that surgery were time barred. However, this Court also expressly held that ` the Talleys timely filed the complaint with respect to the misrepresentations Mrs. Talley says the doctors made subsequent to the surgery.' [ Ex parte Sonnier ], 707 So.2d at 638 (emphasis added). Moreover, this Court reviewed the record before it and found substantial evidence supporting the Talleys' allegations of malpractice (i.e., the misrepresentations). Thus, the [ Ex parte Sonnier ] Court held that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment for the defendant doctors on Talley's misrepresentation claims on the basis of the statute of limitations."”
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.