51 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2025 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pfiffner v. Correagreen2 sentences2012Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1232-33 , summarized the statutory burden upon plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases: ... the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the charged physician, a violation by the physician of that standard of care, and a causal connection between the physician’s alleged negligence and the plaintiffs injuries resulting therefrom. 2010The Louisiana Supreme Court in Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1232-33 , summarized the statutory burden: Thus, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the charged physician, a violation by the physician of that standard of care, and a causal connection between the physician’s alleged negligence and the plaintiffs injuries resulting therefrom, (emphasis added) We focus on the first element of proof in this case because the jury, in its response to an interrogatory, see La. | 4 | 30 |
Prestenbach v. Sentry Ins. Co.green2 sentences1986The plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ‘Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means that, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not.’ Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 1331, 1334 (La.1976); Marcotte v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 258 La. 989 , 249 So.2d 105 (1971).” We remain convinced that the preponderance of the evidence standard best meets the intertwined goals of justice and judicial efficiency. 1985“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means that, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 1331, 1334 (La.1976); Marcotte v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 258 La. 989 , 249 So.2d 105 (1971). | 2 | 2 |
Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospitalgreen2 sentences2014Our supreme court in Johnson v. Morehouse General Hospital, 10-387, pp. 10-11 (La.5/10/11), 63 So.3d 87, 96 , stated: When a medical malpractice action is brought against a physician, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the physician, a violation of that standard of care by the physician, and a causal connection between the physician’s alleged negligence and the plaintiffs resulting injuries. 2014Hosp., 10-387, 10-488, pp. 10-11 (La.5/10/11), 63 So.3d 87, 95-96 (footnote omitted), stated: When a medical malpractice action is brought against a physician, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the physician, a violation of that standard of care by the physician, and a causal connection between the physician’s alleged negligence and the plaintiffs resulting injuries. | 1 | 6 |
Albers v. Vina Family Medicine Clinicgreen1 sentence2025Clinic, 2012- 1484, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/22/13), 116 So.3d 940, 942 (citations omitted); see also La. | 1 | 1 |
McDaniel v. Reedgreen1 sentence2024App. 4 Cir. 10/3/01), 798 So.2d 1121, 1123 (citing La. | 1 | 1 |
Christiano v. Southern Scrap Recyclinggreen2 sentences2014See Christiana v. S. Scrap Recycling, 13-595 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/13) , 131 So.3d 1059, 1063 . 2014See Christiana v. S. Scrap Recycling, 13-595 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/27/13) , 131 So.3d 1059, 1063 . | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. East Jefferson General Hosp.green1 sentence2006Hoot v. Woman's Hospital Foundation, 96-1136, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So.2d 786, 789 , writ denied, 97-1651 (La. 10/3/97), 701 So.2d 209 (citing Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 582 So.2d 1272, 1276 (La. 1991)). | 1 | 1 |
Hoot v. Woman's Hosp. Foundationgreen2 sentences2006Hoot v. Woman's Hospital Foundation, 96-1136, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So.2d 786, 789 , writ denied, 97-1651 (La. 10/3/97), 701 So.2d 209 (citing Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 582 So.2d 1272, 1276 (La. 1991)). 2006See Hoot, 96-1136 at p. 5, 691 So.2d at 789 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elliott v. Insurance Company of North America
neutral
2 sentences1967Ursin-Smith v. United States Casualty Company, La.App., 173 So.2d 18 ; Junker v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Company, La.App., 163 So.2d 150 ; Elliott v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App., 159 So.2d 313 ; Davenport v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., La.App., 146 So.2d 834 ; Phillips v. Underwriters At Lloyd’s of London, La.App., 128 So.2d 318 . 1965Jackson v. International Paper Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 163 So.2d 362 (cert. denied); Elliott v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App. 2 Cir., 159 So.2d 313 (cert. denied). | 3 | 1964–1967 |
Lieux v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2010Lieux , 06-0382 at 11, 951 So.2d at 314 . 2010Lieux , 06-0382 at 11, 951 So.2d at 314 . | 2 | 2007–2010 |
Williams v. Memorial Medical Center
green
2 sentences2005Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992, p. 2 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1230 ; Williams v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806, pp. 15, 16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04), 870 So.2d 1044, 1054 ; Abdullah v. Simmons, 98-0564, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00), 772 So.2d 698, 701 . 2004Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1230 ; Williams v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806, pp. 15,16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04), 870 So.2d 1044, 1054 ; Abdullah v. Simmons, 98-0564, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00), 772 So.2d 698, 701 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Abdullah v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2005Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992, p. 2 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1230 ; Williams v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806, pp. 15, 16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04), 870 So.2d 1044, 1054 ; Abdullah v. Simmons, 98-0564, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00), 772 So.2d 698, 701 . 2004Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1230 ; Williams v. Memorial Medical Center, 03-1806, pp. 15,16 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/17/04), 870 So.2d 1044, 1054 ; Abdullah v. Simmons, 98-0564, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 9/13/00), 772 So.2d 698, 701 . | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Marcotte v. Travelers Insurance Company
green
2 sentences1986The plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ‘Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means that, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not.’ Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 1331, 1334 (La.1976); Marcotte v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 258 La. 989 , 249 So.2d 105 (1971).” We remain convinced that the preponderance of the evidence standard best meets the intertwined goals of justice and judicial efficiency. 1986The plaintiff must establish his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. ‘Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simply means that, taking the evidence as a whole, such proof shows that the fact or cause sought to be proved is more probable than not.’ Prestenbach v. Sentry Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 1331, 1334 (La.1976); Marcotte v. The Travelers Insurance Co., 258 La. 989 , 249 So.2d 105 (1971).” We remain convinced that the preponderance of the evidence standard best meets the intertwined goals of justice and judicial efficiency. | 2 | 1985–1986 |
Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company
green
2 sentences1971Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, 185 So.2d 109 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1966). 1971Williams v. New Orleans Paper Box Company, 185 So.2d 109 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1966). | 2 | 1971–1971 |
Jackson v. International Paper Company
green
2 sentences1967Jackson v. International Paper Company, 163 So.2d 362 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1964) and authorities cited therein; Richard v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, 189 So.2d 460 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1966). 1965Jackson v. International Paper Company, La.App. 3 Cir., 163 So.2d 362 (cert. denied); Elliott v. Insurance Company of North America, La.App. 2 Cir., 159 So.2d 313 (cert. denied). | 2 | 1965–1967 |
Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hospital
green
1 sentence2018Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, 94-0992, p. 2 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228 , 1230 The loss of a chance of a better outcome is a theory of recovery recognized in Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hosp. , 498 So.2d 713 (La. 1986). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schultz v. Guoth
green
1 sentence2014Schultz v. Guoth, 10-0343 (La.1/19/11), 57 So.3d 1002 ; Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228 , 1233 ... | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Moore v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence2014Moore v. Smith, 48,954 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/21/14), 141 So.3d 323, 332 , citing Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228 , and Johnson v. Morehouse Gen’l Hosp., 10-0387 (La.5/10/11), 63 So.3d 87 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Masters
neutral
1 sentence2011Johnson v. Morehouse General Hosp., 10-0387 c/w 10-0488 (La.5/7/10), 34 So.3d 852 , 853. 7 DISCUSSION When a medical malpractice action is brought against a physician, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care applicable to the physician, a violation of that standard of care by the physician, and a causal connection between the physi-dan’s |nalleged negligence and the plaintiffs resulting injuries. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011“A plaintiff must establish his claim to a reasonable certainty, [sic] mere possibility, and even unsupported probability, are not sufficient to support a judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor.” Vondanovich, 03-1079, p. 5, 869 So.2d at 934 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Fagan v. LeBlanc
green
1 sentence2008Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924, 94-0963, and 94-0992, p. 8 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228, 1233 ; Fagan v. LeBlanc, 04-2743, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/10/06), 928 So.2d 571, 575 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hoot v. Woman's Hosp. Foundation
neutral
1 sentence2006Hoot v. Woman's Hospital Foundation, 96-1136, p. 5 (La.App. 1st Cir. 3/27/97), 691 So.2d 786, 789 , writ denied, 97-1651 (La. 10/3/97), 701 So.2d 209 (citing Martin v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 582 So.2d 1272, 1276 (La. 1991)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sewell v. United States
green
1 sentence2003Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La.10/17/94); Sewell v. United States, 629 F.Supp. 448 (W.D.La.1986). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Strange v. Shroff
neutral
1 sentence2003Pfiffner v. Correa, 94-0924 (La.10/17/94), 643 So.2d 1228 ; Strange v. Shroff, 37,353 (La.App.2d Cir.7/16/03), 850 So.2d 1077 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Demopulos v. Jackson
neutral
1 sentence2001LSA-R.S. 9:2794; Demopulos v. Jackson, 33,560 (La.App.2d Cir.6/21/00), 765 So.2d 480 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Charles v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
green
1 sentence1991Charles v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 525 So.2d 1272 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), writ denied 531 So.2d 480 (La.1988); Tassin v. New Orleans Delivery Service, 550 So.2d 1214 (La.App. 5th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Charles v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.
green
1 sentence1991Charles v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 525 So.2d 1272 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), writ denied 531 So.2d 480 (La.1988); Tassin v. New Orleans Delivery Service, 550 So.2d 1214 (La.App. 5th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Tassin v. New Orleans Delivery Service
green
1 sentence1991Charles v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 525 So.2d 1272 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988), writ denied 531 So.2d 480 (La.1988); Tassin v. New Orleans Delivery Service, 550 So.2d 1214 (La.App. 5th Cir.1989). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Crooks v. Belden Corporation
green
1 sentence1986The cases are now legion, among them, Crooks v. Belden Corp., 334 So.2d 725 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976); Sensley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 269 So.2d 473 (La.App. 1st Cir.1972); and Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Comyany, 244 La. 225 , 152 So.2d 1 (1963), which hold that a plaintiff in a workmen’s compensation case must bear the same burden of proof as is required in other civil cases, that is, the plaintiff must establish his claim to a legal certainty, meaning, by a reasonable preponderance of evidence. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Sensley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
green
1 sentence1986The cases are now legion, among them, Crooks v. Belden Corp., 334 So.2d 725 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976); Sensley v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 269 So.2d 473 (La.App. 1st Cir.1972); and Guillory v. New Amsterdam Casualty Comyany, 244 La. 225 , 152 So.2d 1 (1963), which hold that a plaintiff in a workmen’s compensation case must bear the same burden of proof as is required in other civil cases, that is, the plaintiff must establish his claim to a legal certainty, meaning, by a reasonable preponderance of evidence. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Chandler v. Fuqua neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Sims v. Gibson's of Denham Springs, Inc. green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Ursin-Smith v. United States Casualty Co. neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Richard v. National UF Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Phillips v. Underwriters at Lloyd's of London green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Davenport v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Junker v. Toye Bros. Yellow Cab Co. neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Thomas v. American Insurance Co. neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.