Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc.

Holding that district courts have the "primary responsibility" for applying the state-law excessiveness standard because they have "the unique opportunity to consider the evidence in the living courtroom context, while appellate judges see only the cold paper record." (cleaned up)

Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co.

Holding that Erie doctrine applies to conflict-of-law rules

Walker v. Armco Steel Corp.

Holding that Oklahoma rules concerning service of process must be applied by federal courts adjudicating a dispute based on Oklahoma law

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

Holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case

Becker v. Schwartz

Finding courts not equipped to handle the task of comparing the value of life in an impaired state and nonexistence

Zarrella v. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Holding that unjust enrichment may be pled if one or more parties dispute the existence of an express contract

Turpin v. Sortini

In Turpin, a medical care provider negligently failed to discover that Turpin's oldest daughter suffered from an hereditary ailment; as a result, Turpin had another child afflicted with the same condition.

Hardaway Co. v. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.

Holding that the plaintiff’s suit was not barred by the statute of limitation because "in a claim for economic injury sustained due to reliance upon false information negligently provided by a defendant, the statute of limitation begins to run when the plaintiff suffers pecuniary loss with certainty, and not as a matter of pure speculation"

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Ins. Co.

Reversing summary judgment to defendants by holding that parent could seek to recover for emotional distress from witnessing death of child from automobile collision “without regard to whether the emotional trauma arises out of the physical injury to the parent”

Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

Section 9-3-33 - Injuries to the person; injuries to reputation; loss of consortium; exception

Providing a two-year statute-of-limitations for personal injury claims

Section 9-11-9.1 - Affidavit to accompany charge of professional malpractice

Requiring an expert affidavit in professional malpractice suits

Section 9-3-71 - General limitation

Creating a statute of repose for medical malpractice that bars claims from being "brought more than five years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred"

Section 10-1-390 - Short title

Section 9-3-31 - Injuries to personalty

Imposing a four-year limitations period on claims for false endorsement under Georgia law

Section 9-11-9 - Pleading special matters

Requiring circumstances constituting fraud or mistake to be pled with particularity

Section 9-3-70 - "Action for medical malpractice" defined

Explaining that "medical malpractice" includes all claims "arising out of" "[h]ealth, medical, dental, or surgical service, diagnosis, prescription, treatment, or care"

Section 11-2-725 - Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

Stating "[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued."

Section 11-2-316 - Exclusion or modification of warranties

Stating that remedies for breach can be permissibly limited by contractual modification of remedy