813 So. 2d 630 - Paternostro v. LaRocca’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “A. No action for damages against any attorney at law duly admitted to practice in this state, any partnership of such attorneys at law, or any professional corporation, company, organization, association, enterprise, or other commercial business or professional combination authorized by the laws of this state to engage in the practice of law, whether based upon tort, or breach of contract, or otherwise, arising out of an engagement to provide legal services shall be brought unless filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue within one year from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect, or within one year from the date that the alleged act, omission, or neglect is discovered or should have been discovered; however, even as to actions filed within one year from the date of such discovery, in all events such actions shall be filed at the latest within three years from the date of the alleged act, omission, or neglect. B. ... The one-year and three-year periods of limitation provided in Subsection A of this Section are peremptive periods within the meaning of Civil Code Article 3458 [4] and, in accordance with Civil Code Article 3461, [5] may not be renounced, interrupted, or suspended. .... E. The peremptive period provided in Subsection A of this Section shall not apply in cases of fraud, as defined in Civil Code Article 1953. [6]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Teague v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. · 888 So. 2d 1031 - Burns v. Goudeau

2. “The suit arises from a legal malpractice claim asserted by the plaintiff against the defendant in connection with her representation of Straub in a suit to enforce a security interest filed by Blue View Corporation, as well as a subsequent bankruptcy. As a result of the alleged acts of legal malpractice in the Blue View matter and his 2006 bankruptcy, Mr. Straub contends that he suffered entry of an in personam judgment on a claim that was discharged in his 2000 Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, as well as the damages in the form of costs and attorney’s fees and emotional distress. In the instant motion, the defendant contends that Straub’s claims for legal malpractice are preempted [sic] under [La. R.S.] 9:5605 which provides a one-year peremptive period for legal malpractice claims.... [[Image here]] Accrual of the one-year peremptive period set forth in [La. R.S. 9:5605] commences when a claimant knew or should have known of the existence of the facts that would have enabled him to state a cause of action for legal malpractice. Ignorance of one’s right from those facts will not toll prescription. The reasonable man is used to determine whether the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the existence of those facts that would give legal rise to the malpractice action. Mr. Straub began investigating possibly hiring a new counsel due to his dissatisfaction with the representation of Ms. Richardson in November of 2006; see the deposition of David Straub. Mr. Straub did, in fact, have ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Straub v. Richardson

3. “the appropriateness of the claimant's actions or inactions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 888 So. 2d 1031 - Burns v. Goudeau