8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wehling v. Citizens National Bankgreen2 sentences2016Wehling v. Citizens Ñat’l Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Ind.1992) (stating that whether the plaintiffs khew or “in the exercise of ordinary diligence” could have known of the defendant’s alleged negligence was “a question of fact for the factfinder to answer”). 2006Bank, 586 N.E.2d 840, 843 (Ind.1992), our supreme court expanded the application of the discovery rule to all tort actions. | 4 | 4 |
Habig v. Bruninggreen2 sentences2006Although the application of the discovery rule originally found its existence in certain tort cases, it was later, under the guidance of Habig v. Bruning, 613 N.E.2d 61, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) trans. denied, expanded to all tort cases and, in turn, applied to actions for breach of contract under I.C. § 34-11-2-11 by Meisenhelder, 788 N.E.2d at 980 . 1 The rationale underlying the rule suggests that it is "inconsistent with our system of jurisprudence to require a claimant to bring his cause of action in a limited period in which, even with due diligence, he could not be aware a cause of action e 2006Although the application of the discovery rule originally found its existence in certain tort cases, it was later, under the guidance of Habig v. Bruning, 613 N.E.2d 61, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) trans. denied, expanded to all tort cases and, in turn, applied to actions for breach of contract under I.C. § 34-11-2-11 by Meisenhelder, 788 N.E.2d at 980 . 1 The rationale underlying the rule suggests that it is "inconsistent with our system of jurisprudence to require a claimant to bring his cause of action in a limited period in which, even with due diligence, he could not be aware a cause of action e | 1 | 2 |
Charles W. Cooper v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016In 1971, the Seventh Circuit held that “[i]n certain instances, the critical date [for the statute of limitations] is the point at which the injury becomes ap parent.” Cooper v. U.S., 442 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir.1971) (emphasis added). 2016In 1971, the Seventh Circuit held that “[i]n certain instances, the critical date [for the statute of limitations] is the point at which the injury becomes apparent.” Cooper v. U.S., 442 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1971) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Healy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.green1 sentence2006See Healy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. 359 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Barnes v. AH Robins Co., Inc.green1 sentence2006Robins Co., Inc., 476 N.E.2d 84, 86 (Ind.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lyons v. Richmond Community School Corp.
green
2 sentences2014In its original opinion, the panel below suggested the application of the discovery rule was a question of fact for the jury, Lyons, 990 N.E.2d at 481 , but upon rehearing, the panel stated it was rather a question of law for the trial court. 2014In its original opinion, the panel below suggested the application of the discovery rule was a question of fact for the jury, Lyons, 990 N.E.2d at 481 , but upon rehearing, the panel stated it was rather a question of law for the trial court. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Lyons v. Richmond Community School Corp.
green
2 sentences2014Lyons, 996 N.E.2d at 1280 . 2014Lyons, 996 N.E.2d at 1280 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Meisenhelder v. Zipp Express, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Although the application of the discovery rule originally found its existence in certain tort cases, it was later, under the guidance of Habig v. Bruning, 613 N.E.2d 61, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) trans. denied, expanded to all tort cases and, in turn, applied to actions for breach of contract under I.C. § 34-11-2-11 by Meisenhelder, 788 N.E.2d at 980 . 1 The rationale underlying the rule suggests that it is "inconsistent with our system of jurisprudence to require a claimant to bring his cause of action in a limited period in which, even with due diligence, he could not be aware a cause of action e | 1 | 2006–2006 |
New Welton Homes v. Eckman
green
1 sentence2003Another panel of this court recently held that "the statute of limitations in a breach of contract case can be tolled by the application of the discovery rule." New Welton *930 Homes v. Eckman, 786 N.E.2d 1172 (Ind. Ct.App.2008) (citing Habig, 613 N.E.2d at 65 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fager v. Hundt
green
2 sentences1996In Fager, 610 N.E.2d 246 (Ind.1993), our supreme court specifically rejected an application of the discovery rule based upon the subjective perspective of the injured person based on the injured person’s actual knowledge. 1996Id. at 250-51 . | 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.