breach of the applicable standard (Louisiana) · Go Syfert
← Louisiana issues

breach of the applicable standard in Louisiana

5 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Jackson v. Suazo-Vasquezgreen
lactapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See , 116 So.3d at 779 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Deroche v. Tanenbaum green
lactapp · 2013
1 sentence

2014Deroche, 131 So.3d at 402-403 .

12014–2014
Alex v. Dr. X green
lactapp · 1997
1 sentence

2010As such, the burden shifted to Mr. Crochet to "sufficiently establish the existence of proof of an essential element of his claim on which he is to bear the burden of proving at trial." Alex v. Dr. X, 96-1196, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/97), 692 So.2d 499, 502 ; La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(C).

12010–2010
Pfiffner v. Correa green
la · 1994
1 sentence

2005In Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d at 1233 , the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized *43 that expert testimony is not always necessary to meet the plaintiff's burden of proving a breach of the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice case, stating: [T]here are situations in which expert testimony is not necessary.

12005–2005
Perkins v. Entergy Corp. green
la · 2001
1 sentence

2004In essence, Ms. Young argues that the trial judge erred in finding, pursuant to the second prong of the duty-risk analysis as set forth by the supreme court in Perkins, 782 So.2d 606 , that the Sandman's conduct did, in fact, conform to the appropriate standard— viz., that the Sandman had not committed a breach of the applicable standard of conduct by doing business without a night watchman on duty.

12004–2004

Where else courts name it

TX 98 (1990–2024) AL 12 (1993–2015) IN 5 (2003–2018) LA 5 (2004–2018) CT 4 (1999–2020) NY 4 (2012–2023) WV 4 (2006–2021) IL 4 (1989–1993) ID 3 (2016–2021) ME 3 (1984–2021) MD 3 (2007–2025) VA 2 (1989–1998) AZ 2 (2013–2018) DE 2 (2020–2020) DC 2 (1998–2009) MN 2 (1989–2008) AR 2 (2007–2021) GA 2 (2014–2014)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check