codification of the discovery rule (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

codification of the discovery rule in Arizona

5 Arizona opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Walk v. Ringgreen
ariz · 2002 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2020
2 sentences

2020Under that rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows he or she has been injured and has a “reason to connect [the injury] to a particular [cause, source, act, event, instrumentality, or condition] in such a way that a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate whether the injury might result from fault.” Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 316, ¶ 22 (2002) (emphasis added); see Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 322, ¶ 29 (1998) (“A cause of action [accrues when] the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause.”) (emphasis added). ¶24 The St

2020Under the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows she has been injured and has a “reason to connect [the injury] to a particular [cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition] in such a way that a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate whether the injury might result from fault.” Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 316, ¶ 22 (2002); see also Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 322, ¶ 29 (1998) (“A cause of action [accrues when] the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause.”) (emphasis added). ¶10 Although the det

33
Thompson v. Pima Countygreen
arizctapp · 2010 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2020
2 sentences

2020A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) (“Any claim that is not filed within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues is barred and no action may be maintained thereon.”). 9 HUMPHREY, et al. v. STATE Opinion of the Court A. Accrual of Humphrey’s Claim ¶23 Section 12-821.01(B) provides that a claim accrues when “the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality, or condition that caused or contributed to the damage.” We have interpreted § 12-821.01(B) “as a codification of the discovery rule for determining wh

2020Claims “clearly brought outside the relevant limitations period are conclusively barred.” Montano v. Browning, 202 Ariz. 544, 546, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). ¶9 A claim against a public entity accrues “when the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition that caused or contributed to the damage.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B) (emphasis added). 3 This court has interpreted A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B) “as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities . . . accrue.” T

33
Doe v. Roegreen
ariz · 1998 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2019–2020
2 sentences

2020Under that rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows he or she has been injured and has a “reason to connect [the injury] to a particular [cause, source, act, event, instrumentality, or condition] in such a way that a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate whether the injury might result from fault.” Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 316, ¶ 22 (2002) (emphasis added); see Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 322, ¶ 29 (1998) (“A cause of action [accrues when] the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause.”) (emphasis added). ¶24 The St

2020Under the discovery rule, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows she has been injured and has a “reason to connect [the injury] to a particular [cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition] in such a way that a reasonable person would be on notice to investigate whether the injury might result from fault.” Walk v. Ring, 202 Ariz. 310, 316, ¶ 22 (2002); see also Doe v. Roe, 191 Ariz. 313, 322, ¶ 29 (1998) (“A cause of action [accrues when] the plaintiff knows or with reasonable diligence should know the facts underlying the cause.”) (emphasis added). ¶10 Although the det

33
Rineer v. Leonardogreen
ariz · 1999 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See also Rineer, 194 Ariz. 45, ¶ 7 , 977 P.2d at 768 ; Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. at 471 , 808 P.2d at 1223 . ¶ 12 Section 12-821.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a cause of action accrues when the party “knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage.” This language has been interpreted as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities and employees accrue.

2010See also Rineer, 194 Ariz. 45, ¶ 7 , 977 P.2d at 768 ; Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. at 471 , 808 P.2d at 1223 . ¶ 12 Section 12-821.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a cause of action accrues when the party “knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage.” This language has been interpreted as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities and employees accrue.

22
Dube v. Likinsgreen
arizctapp · 2007 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See Dube, 216 Ariz. 406, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d at 110 ; Stulce v. Salt River Project Agric.

2010See Dube, 216 Ariz. 406, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d at 110 ; Stulce v. Salt River Project Agric.

22
Montano v. Browninggreen
arizctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Claims “clearly brought outside the relevant limitations period are conclusively barred.” Montano v. Browning, 202 Ariz. 544, 546, ¶ 4 (App. 2002). ¶9 A claim against a public entity accrues “when the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition that caused or contributed to the damage.” A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B) (emphasis added). 3 This court has interpreted A.R.S. § 12-821.01(B) “as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities . . . accrue.” T

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Janson v. Christensen green
ariz · 1991
2 sentences

2010See also Rineer, 194 Ariz. 45, ¶ 7 , 977 P.2d at 768 ; Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. at 471 , 808 P.2d at 1223 . ¶ 12 Section 12-821.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a cause of action accrues when the party “knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage.” This language has been interpreted as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities and employees accrue.

2010See also Rineer, 194 Ariz. 45, ¶ 7 , 977 P.2d at 768 ; Janson v. Christensen, 167 Ariz. at 471 , 808 P.2d at 1223 . ¶ 12 Section 12-821.01(B) provides, in pertinent part, that a cause of action accrues when the party “knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition which caused or contributed to the damage.” This language has been interpreted as a codification of the discovery rule for determining when causes of action against public entities and employees accrue.

22010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821.01 (5) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

AZ 5 (2010–2020) TN 4 (1996–2005) CA 3 (2014–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check