Merrit v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Merrit v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund

639 So. 2d 881, 94 La.App. 4 Cir. 0816, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2019, 1994 WL 321667

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 8, 1994

DocketNo. 94-C-0816

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 639 So. 2d 881 (Merrit v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merrit v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 639 So. 2d 881, 94 La.App. 4 Cir. 0816, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 2019, 1994 WL 321667 (La. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

BARRY, Judge.

The- fundamental purpose of a prescription statute is to afford security of mind to a defendant and protect against a stale claim.

The amended claim arose out of the same conduct which was set forth in the original pleading. The plaintiffs in the amended claim were also parties in the original petition and are not “wholly new or unrelated.” See Giroir v. South La. Medical Center, Etc., 475 So.2d 1040 (La.1985) which sets out a four part test to determine whether an amendment relates back to the date of the original petition.

The defendant was on notice that a claim arose out of the alleged malpractice which is sufficient notice that an additional claim might arise out of the originally pleaded facts.

WRIT DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI