Dwight L. Ingraham v. United States of America, Jocelyn Bonds, Etc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a Texas statute’s limitation on damages was an affirmative defense, in part, because the plaintiffs “would have made greater efforts to prove medical damages which were not subject to the statutory limit,” had they known the limit applied
• noting that failure to plead statutory limit on medical malpractice liability prejudiced plaintiffs who would have offered additional proof of damages or pleaded other theories of recovery with more vigor had they know of the defense
• defense forfeited due to prejudice because the opposing party “would have made greater efforts” to prove damages at trial had the defense been raised earlier
• “Central to requiring the pleading of affirmative defenses is the prevention of unfair surprise. A defendant should not be permitted to ‘lie behind a log’ and ambush a plaintiff with an unexpected defense.”
• “Central to requiring the pleading of affirmative defenses is the prevention of unfair surprise.”
• “Central to requiring the pleading of affirmative defenses is the prevention of unfair surprise. A defendant should not be permitted to ‘lie behind a log’ and ambush a plaintiff with an unexpected defense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).