Legal Opinion

Paul v. Gomez

District Court, W.D. Virginia

Decided February 3, 2000No. 1:99CV00166PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

JONES, District Judge.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant has moved to strike the ad damnum clause of the plaintiffs complaint because it seeks damages in excess of the Virginia statutory cap and to strike the claim for punitive damages on the ground that it is factually insufficient. I will grant the motion as to the ad damnum but deny it as to the claim for punitive damages.

I

The plaintiff claims that her decedent, Johnny M. Beverly, was the victim of medical malpractice at the hands of the defendant *403physician.1 Count I of the complaint alleges that the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Etheridge v. Medical Center HospitalsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1989
  2. Pulliam v. Coastal Emergency Services of Richmond, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1999
  3. Arenson v. Whitehall Convalescent & Nursing Home, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1995
  4. Craven v. Associated Transport, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1966
  5. Tiller v. Hobart Corp.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1999

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Consumer Solutions Reo, LLC v. HilleryDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009
  2. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs. Com, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2008
  3. Dotson v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 2002
  4. Wright v. Eli Lilly & Co.Portsmouth County Circuit Court · 2004
  5. Richardson-Bass v. State Center Community College DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API