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 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 142 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco Anchor | green | “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury” | 30 |
| 2 | J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics International, Inc. | green | “from pleading and utilizing the statute of limitations as a bar, although the time limit of the statute may have already run.” | 28 |
| 3 | Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco | green | “when the plaintiff suspects a legal wrong.” | 28 |
| 4 | Wilhelm v. Frampton | green | “statutes of limitation in idaho are not tolled by judicial construction but rather by the expressed language of the statute,” | 24 |
| 5 | J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics International, Inc. | green | “(1) a false representation or concealment of a material fact with actual or constructive knowledge of the truth; (2) that the party asserting estoppel did not know or could not discover the truth; (3) that the false representation or concealment was made with the intent that it …” | 19 |
| 6 | Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco | green | “and not when the plaintiff suspects a legal wrong.” | 13 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.