Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
27 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knox College v. Celotex Corp.green2 sentences2023App. 3d 690, 705 , 867 N.E.2d 1085, 1099-1100 (2007). ¶ 31 “The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury.” Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976, 979 (1981). “[T]he statute starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.” Id. at 415 . ¶ 32 “Knowledge that an injury has been ‘wrongfully caused’ does not mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct 2023App. 3d 690, 705 , 867 N.E.2d 1085, 1099-1100 (2007). ¶ 31 “The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury.” Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976, 979 (1981). “[T]he statute starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.” Id. at 415 . ¶ 32 “Knowledge that an injury has been ‘wrongfully caused’ does not mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct | 3 | 12 |
Golla v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2004As our supreme court has explained: “To alleviate the harsh consequences that would flow from literal application of the limitations period, the judiciary created the ‘discovery rule.’ The effect of the discovery rule, which this court first adopted in Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 72-73 , is to postpone the commencement of the relevant statute of limitations until the injured plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury was wrongfully caused. [Citation.] Since Rozny, the discovery rule has been applied to a wide variety of actions. [Citations 2004As our supreme court has explained: "To alleviate the harsh consequences that would flow from literal application of the limitations period, the judiciary created the 'discovery rule.' The effect of the discovery rule, which this court first adopted in Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 72-73 , is to postpone the commencement of the relevant statute of limitations until the injured plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury was wrongfully caused. [Citation.] Since Rozny , the discovery rule has been applied to a wide variety of actions. [Citation | 2 | 4 |
Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestosgreen2 sentences2000See Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos, 85 Ill. 2d 161, 169 , 421 N.E.2d 864, 868 (1981). 1990The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury. [Citations.] The difficulty in applying the discovery rule has been in giving meaning to the term commonly used stating the rule, ‘knows or should have known of his injury.’ ” ( 88 Ill. 2d at 414 .) The supreme court considered this difficulty and relied upon two earlier holdings in which it had explicated the rule and adopted a construction of it which was neither “narrow nor expansive.” ( 88 Ill. 2d at 414-15 .) Citing Witherell v. Weimer | 2 | 3 |
Brdar v. Cottrell, Inc.green1 sentence2023App. 3d 690, 705 , 867 N.E.2d 1085, 1099-1100 (2007). ¶ 31 “The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury.” Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976, 979 (1981). “[T]he statute starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.” Id. at 415 . ¶ 32 “Knowledge that an injury has been ‘wrongfully caused’ does not mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Travisgreen2 sentences2023App. 3d 690, 705 , 867 N.E.2d 1085, 1099-1100 (2007). ¶ 31 “The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury.” Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976, 979 (1981). “[T]he statute starts to run when a person knows or reasonably should know of his injury and also knows or reasonably should know that it was wrongfully caused.” Id. at 415 . ¶ 32 “Knowledge that an injury has been ‘wrongfully caused’ does not mean knowledge of a specific defendant’s negligent conduct 2023App. 3d 282, 287 , 672 N.E.2d 789, 793 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dancor International, Ltd. v. Friedman, Goldberg & Mintz
green
2 sentences2010The effect of the discovery rule is to “delay[ ] commencement of the statute of limitations until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known of the injury and that it may have been wrongfully caused.” Dancor, 288 Ill. 2010The effect of the discovery rule is to "dela[y] commencement of the statute of limitations until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known of the injury and that it may have been wrongfully caused." Dancor, 288 Ill. | 5 | 2006–2010 |
Rozny v. Marnul
green
2 sentences2004As our supreme court has explained: “To alleviate the harsh consequences that would flow from literal application of the limitations period, the judiciary created the ‘discovery rule.’ The effect of the discovery rule, which this court first adopted in Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 72-73 , is to postpone the commencement of the relevant statute of limitations until the injured plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury was wrongfully caused. [Citation.] Since Rozny, the discovery rule has been applied to a wide variety of actions. [Citations 2004As our supreme court has explained: "To alleviate the harsh consequences that would flow from literal application of the limitations period, the judiciary created the 'discovery rule.' The effect of the discovery rule, which this court first adopted in Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 72-73 , is to postpone the commencement of the relevant statute of limitations until the injured plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has been injured and that his injury was wrongfully caused. [Citation.] Since Rozny , the discovery rule has been applied to a wide variety of actions. [Citation | 4 | 1982–2004 |
Hermitage Corp. v. Contractors Adjustment Co.
green
2 sentences2019Hermitage, 166 Ill. 2d at 81 . 2018Hermitage , 166 Ill. 2d at 81 , 209 Ill.Dec. 684 , 651 N.E.2d 1132 . | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Clark v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
green
1 sentence2002Pace relies on Clark v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 141 Ill. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer
green
1 sentence1995Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer (1994), 158 Ill. 2d 240, 249 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Pratt v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
green
1 sentence1994(Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976, 979 .) "A plaintiff requesting application of the discovery rule must plead facts necessary to explain why the cause of action was not discovered sooner.” (Pratt v. Sears Roebuck & Co. (1979), 71 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Santa Claus Industries, Inc. v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1994Santa Claus Industries, Inc. v. First National Bank (1991), 216 Ill.App.3d 231 , 159 Ill. 1994Santa Claus Industries, Inc. v. First National Bank (1991), 216 Ill. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Witherell v. Weimer
green
1 sentence1990The effect of the discovery rule is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury. [Citations.] The difficulty in applying the discovery rule has been in giving meaning to the term commonly used stating the rule, ‘knows or should have known of his injury.’ ” ( 88 Ill. 2d at 414 .) The supreme court considered this difficulty and relied upon two earlier holdings in which it had explicated the rule and adopted a construction of it which was neither “narrow nor expansive.” ( 88 Ill. 2d at 414-15 .) Citing Witherell v. Weimer | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McDaniel v. La Salle Ambulance Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984(Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414-15 ; McDaniel v. LaSalle Ambulance Service, Inc. (1982), 108 Ill. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Mosby v. Michael Reese Hospital
green
1 sentence1982App. 2d 336 , 199 N.E.2d 633 .) The discovery rule represents the judiciary’s attempt to remedy this problem and “to alleviate what has been viewed as harsh results resulting from the literal application of the statute [of limitations].” (Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 414 , 430 N.E.2d 976 .) The effect of the discovery rule, which was first adopted in Illinois in Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 72-73 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , is to postpone the starting of the period of limitations until the injured party knows or should have known of his injury. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.