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.
20 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Russell Packard Development, Inc. v. Carsongreen2 sentences2021See Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 23 , 108 P.3d 741 (noting that under the statutory discovery rule, “the statute of limitations would begin running from the date a plaintiff either discovered or should have discovered his or her claim”) (emphasis added); Berenda, 914 P.2d at 51 . 2021See Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 23 , 108 P.3d 741 (noting that under the statutory discovery rule, “the statute of limitations would begin running from the date a plaintiff either discovered or should have discovered his or her claim”) (emphasis added); Berenda, 914 P.2d at 51 . | 6 | 13 |
Sandoval v. Archdiocese of Denvergreen2 sentences2007Kajunski, Comment, Civil Procedure — Discovery Rule Inapplicable to Nonperpetrator Defendants in Cases of Childhood Sexual Abuse—Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), 31 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 751 (1998). [53] Petersen, 792 P.2d at 23 . [54] Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 28 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation mark 2007Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, 128 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation marks omitted)). . 678 A2d 873, 876, 878 (R.L.1996); see also Debbie Reynolds, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d at 520 (indicating that the legislature did not intend that the statutory discovery rule would apply to non-perpetrator defendants); Sandoval v. Archdiocese | 2 | 2 |
Debbie Reynolds Professional Rehearsal Studios v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2007Kajunski, Comment, Civil Procedure — Discovery Rule Inapplicable to Nonperpetrator Defendants in Cases of Childhood Sexual Abuse—Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), 31 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 751 (1998). [53] Petersen, 792 P.2d at 23 . [54] Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 28 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation mark 2007Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, 128 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation marks omitted)). . 678 A2d 873, 876, 878 (R.L.1996); see also Debbie Reynolds, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d at 520 (indicating that the legislature did not intend that the statutory discovery rule would apply to non-perpetrator defendants); Sandoval v. Archdiocese | 2 | 2 |
Kelly v. Marcantoniogreen2 sentences2007Kajunski, Comment, Civil Procedure — Discovery Rule Inapplicable to Nonperpetrator Defendants in Cases of Childhood Sexual Abuse—Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), 31 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 751 (1998). [53] Petersen, 792 P.2d at 23 . [54] Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 28 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation mark 2007Kajunski, Comment, Civil Procedure — Discovery Rule Inapplicable to Nonperpetrator Defendants in Cases of Childhood Sexual Abuse—Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), 31 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 751 (1998). [53] Petersen, 792 P.2d at 23 . [54] Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 28 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation mark | 2 | 2 |
Berenda v. Langfordgreen2 sentences2021See Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 23 , 108 P.3d 741 (noting that under the statutory discovery rule, “the statute of limitations would begin running from the date a plaintiff either discovered or should have discovered his or her claim”) (emphasis added); Berenda, 914 P.2d at 51 . 2005Berenda, 914 P.2d at 56 . ¶ 22 Although determining when a plaintiff either discovered or reasonably should have discovered his or her cause of action is often a difficult and intensely fact-dependent inquiry, the underlying application of a statutory discovery rule is, in its broadest and most basic sense, a relatively simple matter. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Hoopiiaina Trustgreen2 sentences2011That statute of limitations includes a statutory discovery rule, providing that "the cause of action does not acerue until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud." Id.; see also In re Hoopiaina, 2006 UT 53 , T 24, 144 P.3d 1129 (clarifying that if a party is seeking relief that requires "the cancellation of a deed for fraud or mistake, he must bring his quiet title action within the period provided by law for an action based on that ground" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); Davidsen v. Salt Lake City, 95 Utah 347 , 81 P.2d 374, 876-77 (1988) 2011That statute of limitations includes a statutory discovery rule, providing that "the cause of action does not acerue until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud." Id.; see also In re Hoopiaina, 2006 UT 53 , T 24, 144 P.3d 1129 (clarifying that if a party is seeking relief that requires "the cancellation of a deed for fraud or mistake, he must bring his quiet title action within the period provided by law for an action based on that ground" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); Davidsen v. Salt Lake City, 95 Utah 347 , 81 P.2d 374, 876-77 (1988) | 1 | 2 |
Shiozawa v. Dukegreen2 sentences2018See Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson , 2005 UT 14 , ¶ 23, 108 P.3d 741 . "[T]he determination of when the aggrieved party reasonably should have known of the facts forming the basis of the party's fraud claim is a question of fact." Shiozawa v. Duke , 2015 UT App 40 , ¶ 14, 344 P.3d 1174 . 2018See Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson , 2005 UT 14 , ¶ 23, 108 P.3d 741 . "[T]he determination of when the aggrieved party reasonably should have known of the facts forming the basis of the party's fraud claim is a question of fact." Shiozawa v. Duke , 2015 UT App 40 , ¶ 14, 344 P.3d 1174 . | 1 | 1 |
Baldwin v. Burtongreen1 sentence2015The Utah Supreme Court has further instructed that "[a] party who has opportunity of knowing the facts constituting the alleged fraud cannot be inactive and afterwards allege a want of knowledge." Baldwin v. Burton, 850 P.2d 1188, 1196 (Utah 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Davidsen v. Salt Lake Citygreen2 sentences2011That statute of limitations includes a statutory discovery rule, providing that "the cause of action does not acerue until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud." Id.; see also In re Hoopiaina, 2006 UT 53 , T 24, 144 P.3d 1129 (clarifying that if a party is seeking relief that requires "the cancellation of a deed for fraud or mistake, he must bring his quiet title action within the period provided by law for an action based on that ground" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); Davidsen v. Salt Lake City, 95 Utah 347 , 81 P.2d 374, 876-77 (1988) 2011That statute of limitations includes a statutory discovery rule, providing that "the cause of action does not acerue until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud." Id.; see also In re Hoopiaina, 2006 UT 53 , T 24, 144 P.3d 1129 (clarifying that if a party is seeking relief that requires "the cancellation of a deed for fraud or mistake, he must bring his quiet title action within the period provided by law for an action based on that ground" (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)); Davidsen v. Salt Lake City, 95 Utah 347 , 81 P.2d 374, 876-77 (1988) | 1 | 1 |
Walker Drug Co. v. La Sal Oil Co.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Walker Drug, 902 P.2d at 1231-32 ; Brigham Young Univ., 744 P.2d at 1373-74 . 2005Accordingly, to clarify this distinction, we hereinafter refer to the discovery rule as it applies to a statute of limitations that does not contain a statutory discovery rule as an “equitable discovery rule.” ¶ 25 We have limited the circumstances in which an equitable discovery rule may operate to toll an otherwise fixed statute of limitations period to the following two situations: (1) “where a plaintiff does not become aware of the cause of action because of the defendant’s concealment or misleading conduct,” and (2) “where the ease presents exceptional circumstances and the application of | 1 | 1 |
Myers v. McDonaldgreen1 sentence2005Accordingly, to clarify this distinction, we hereinafter refer to the discovery rule as it applies to a statute of limitations that does not contain a statutory discovery rule as an “equitable discovery rule.” ¶ 25 We have limited the circumstances in which an equitable discovery rule may operate to toll an otherwise fixed statute of limitations period to the following two situations: (1) “where a plaintiff does not become aware of the cause of action because of the defendant’s concealment or misleading conduct,” and (2) “where the ease presents exceptional circumstances and the application of | 1 | 1 |
Selvage v. J.J. Johnson & Associatesgreen1 sentence2004Johnson & Assocs., 910 P.2d 1252, 1259 (Utah Ct.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Seale v. Gowansgreen1 sentence1997See Seale, 923 P.2d at 1363 ; Chapman, 784 P.2d at 1184 ; Foil, 601 P.2d at 148 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colosimo v. ROMAN CATH. BISHOP OF SALT LAKE
green
2 sentences2015A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered a claim upon obtaining actual knowledge of the fraud or when "by reasonable diligence and inquiry [the plaintiff] should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against [the plaintiff]." Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2007 UT 25 , ¶17, 156 P.3d 806 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Russell Packard, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 22 , 108 P.3d 741 ("Onee the triggering event identified by the statutory discovery rule occurs-i.e., when a plaintiff first has actual or construe tive knowledge of the relevant facts forming the basis of th 2015A plaintiff is deemed to have discovered a claim upon obtaining actual knowledge of the fraud or when "by reasonable diligence and inquiry [the plaintiff] should know the relevant facts of the fraud perpetrated against [the plaintiff]." Colosimo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2007 UT 25 , ¶17, 156 P.3d 806 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Russell Packard, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 22 , 108 P.3d 741 ("Onee the triggering event identified by the statutory discovery rule occurs-i.e., when a plaintiff first has actual or construe tive knowledge of the relevant facts forming the basis of th | 2 | 2015–2021 |
Foil v. Ballinger
green
2 sentences2012Foil, 601 P.2d at 147 . . 1997See Seale, 923 P.2d at 1363 ; Chapman, 784 P.2d at 1184 ; Foil, 601 P.2d at 148 . | 2 | 1997–2012 |
Jensen v. IHC Health Services
green
1 sentence2020But we have also clarified that “without more, neither (1) the existence of symptoms, (2) a suspicion that a doctor’s negligence caused medical complications, nor (3) the commencement of an investigation is sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations.” Id. ¶ 15. ¶25 We have compared the discovery rule in the Malpractice Act with statutory discovery rules in general, explaining that 6 Cite as: 2020 UT 57 Opinion of the Court under a statutory discovery rule, the limitations period begins to run “when a plaintiff first has actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant facts forming the b | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Solutions., LLC v. Northland Process Piping, Inc. , 184 F.Supp.3d 1030 , 1049 (D.N.M. 2016) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has not resolved whether the assertion of a tolling doctrine such as the discovery rule "must be pled with supporting facts in the complaint or may be merely argued in response to the motion"); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. , 35 Cal.4th 797 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 110 P.3d 914 , 920-21 (2005) (noting that a plaintiff must specifically plead facts invoking the statutory discovery rule, but would be entitled to amend her complaint once the defendant raised statute of limi 2018Solutions., LLC v. Northland Process Piping, Inc. , 184 F.Supp.3d 1030 , 1049 (D.N.M. 2016) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has not resolved whether the assertion of a tolling doctrine such as the discovery rule "must be pled with supporting facts in the complaint or may be merely argued in response to the motion"); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. , 35 Cal.4th 797 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 110 P.3d 914 , 920-21 (2005) (noting that a plaintiff must specifically plead facts invoking the statutory discovery rule, but would be entitled to amend her complaint once the defendant raised statute of limi | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stephenson v. Elison
green
2 sentences2018"The first setting involves application of a statutory discovery rule, when the relevant statute of limitations, by its own terms, mandates tolling of the limitations period until the factual basis for the claim has been discovered." Stephenson v. Elison , 2017 UT App 149 , ¶ 27, 405 P.3d 733 . 2018"The first setting involves application of a statutory discovery rule, when the relevant statute of limitations, by its own terms, mandates tolling of the limitations period until the factual basis for the claim has been discovered." Stephenson v. Elison , 2017 UT App 149 , ¶ 27, 405 P.3d 733 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Butler v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Solutions., LLC v. Northland Process Piping, Inc. , 184 F.Supp.3d 1030 , 1049 (D.N.M. 2016) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has not resolved whether the assertion of a tolling doctrine such as the discovery rule "must be pled with supporting facts in the complaint or may be merely argued in response to the motion"); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. , 35 Cal.4th 797 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 110 P.3d 914 , 920-21 (2005) (noting that a plaintiff must specifically plead facts invoking the statutory discovery rule, but would be entitled to amend her complaint once the defendant raised statute of limi 2018Solutions., LLC v. Northland Process Piping, Inc. , 184 F.Supp.3d 1030 , 1049 (D.N.M. 2016) (noting that the Tenth Circuit has not resolved whether the assertion of a tolling doctrine such as the discovery rule "must be pled with supporting facts in the complaint or may be merely argued in response to the motion"); Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. , 35 Cal.4th 797 , 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 661 , 110 P.3d 914 , 920-21 (2005) (noting that a plaintiff must specifically plead facts invoking the statutory discovery rule, but would be entitled to amend her complaint once the defendant raised statute of limi | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Mower cites Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc. for the proposition that, "where the agent has interests in the transaction adverse to the principal’s, or where the agent colludes with third parties whose interests are adverse to the principal's interests, knowledge of the facts at issue will not be imputed to the principal.” 2003 UT 51, ¶63 , 82 P.3d 1076 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 2017Mower cites Jensen v. IHC Hospitals, Inc. for the proposition that, "where the agent has interests in the transaction adverse to the principal’s, or where the agent colludes with third parties whose interests are adverse to the principal's interests, knowledge of the facts at issue will not be imputed to the principal.” 2003 UT 51, ¶63 , 82 P.3d 1076 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Booth v. Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2014Fund, Inc., 2001 UT 13, ¶ 43 , 20 P.3d 319 ("Discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting an alleged fraud is measured from the time the fraud was actually known or could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence."). . 2014Fund, Inc., 2001 UT 13, ¶ 43 , 20 P.3d 319 ("Discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting an alleged fraud is measured from the time the fraud was actually known or could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence."). . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Petersen v. Bruen
green
1 sentence2007Kajunski, Comment, Civil Procedure — Discovery Rule Inapplicable to Nonperpetrator Defendants in Cases of Childhood Sexual Abuse—Kelly v. Marcantonio, 678 A.2d 873 (R.I. 1996), 31 Suffolk U.L.Rev. 751 (1998). [53] Petersen, 792 P.2d at 23 . [54] Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, ¶ 28 , 108 P.3d 741 (indicating that the policy underlying the statute of limitations is "to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared" (internal quotation mark | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Brigham Young University v. Paulsen Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2005See, e.g., Walker Drug, 902 P.2d at 1231-32 ; Brigham Young Univ., 744 P.2d at 1373-74 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chapman Ex Rel. Chapman v. Primary Children's Hospital
green
1 sentence1997See Seale, 923 P.2d at 1363 ; Chapman, 784 P.2d at 1184 ; Foil, 601 P.2d at 148 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Klinger v. Kightly
green
2 sentences1996However, as the Utah Supreme Court noted in Klinger v. Kightly, 791 P.2d 868 (Utah 1990), a statutory discovery rule is only one rationale for invoking the discovery rule. 1996Id. at 872 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.