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.
6 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Roegreen1 sentence2023Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, ¶ 41 (1998) (tolling for a claimant’s unsound mind). | 1 | 1 |
Logerquist v. Danforthgreen1 sentence2023Marquette Venture Partners II, L.P. v. Leonesio, 227 Ariz. 179, ¶ 19 (App. 2011); see Logerquist v. Danforth, 188 Ariz. 16, 21 (App. 1996) (discovery rule available for plaintiffs who were sexually abused, repressed those memories, and, after remembering the abuse, brought complaints after statute of limitations ran). ¶47 In addition to the application of the discovery rule, a trial court can toll the statute of limitations due to a claimant’s disability. | 1 | 1 |
Marquette Venture Partners II v. Leonesiogreen1 sentence2023Marquette Venture Partners II, L.P. v. Leonesio, 227 Ariz. 179, ¶ 19 (App. 2011); see Logerquist v. Danforth, 188 Ariz. 16, 21 (App. 1996) (discovery rule available for plaintiffs who were sexually abused, repressed those memories, and, after remembering the abuse, brought complaints after statute of limitations ran). ¶47 In addition to the application of the discovery rule, a trial court can toll the statute of limitations due to a claimant’s disability. | 1 | 1 |
Ault v. Jaskogreen2 sentences1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . 1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . | 1 | 1 |
Lemmerman v. Fealkgreen2 sentences1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . 1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . | 1 | 1 |
Hickman v. Grovergreen1 sentence1988While federal courts have dealt directly with the issue of the defendant’s identity, we note that the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has articulated the following discovery rule: In products liability cases, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, (1) that he has been injured, (2) the identity of the maker of the product, and (3) that the product has a causal relation to his injury- Hickman v. Grover, 358 S.E.2d 810, 813 (W.Va.1987) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Clark v. Airesearch Manufacturing Co. of Arizona, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007The application of the discovery rule in a defamation case against a private individual is not before us, although, as stated in Clark , the discovery rule can apply to those cases. 138 Ariz. at 242 , 673 P.2d at 986 . 2007The application of the discovery rule in a defamation case against a private individual is not before us, although, as stated in Clark , the discovery rule can apply to those cases. 138 Ariz. at 242 , 673 P.2d at 986 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
1 sentence2004Id. ¶ 55 This case is dissimilar from Gust, Rosenfeld, and we conclude that these are not the circumstances that warrant the application of the discovery rule. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Phillips v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1997App.3d 890 , 174 Ill.Dec. 458 , 599 N.E.2d 4 (1992). [3] The application of the discovery rule to claims of repressed memory is not without criticism and some jurisdictions have refused to apply it in that context. 1997App.3d 890 , 174 Ill.Dec. 458 , 599 N.E.2d 4 (1992). [3] The application of the discovery rule to claims of repressed memory is not without criticism and some jurisdictions have refused to apply it in that context. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tyson v. Tyson
red
2 sentences1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . 1997See e.g., Lemmerman v. Fealk, 449 Mich. 56 , 534 N.W.2d 695 (1995); Tyson v. Tyson, 107 Wash.2d 72 , 727 P.2d 226 (1986) (result changed by statute); Ault v. Jasko, 70 Ohio St.3d 114, 637 N.E.2d 870, 875 (Wright, J., dissenting). . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
cluster 409215
green
1 sentence1988That court held that genuine issues of material fact about the application of the discovery rule precluded summary judgment on plaintiffs cause of action arising out of chemical warfare experiments conducted by the United States Army in the early 1950s. 689 F.2d at 330 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Kubrick
green
2 sentences1988The Barrett court began its analysis of the discovery rule by reference to United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 , 100 S.Ct. 352 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). 1988The Barrett court began its analysis of the discovery rule by reference to United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 , 100 S.Ct. 352 , 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Brown v. Ellison
green
1 sentence1988We find the reasoning of the Iowa court in Brown v. Ellison, supra, more suitable to modem day experiences and therefore hold that in an action based upon either tort or contract claims arising out of allegedly deficient design or construction of improvements to real estate, the cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, of the injury. 3 Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the notice of appeal was untimely filed. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.