Kevin J. v. Sager’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In support of his argument that Plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of the causal connection between the alleged abuse and injury prior to February 5, 1994, [the defendant] Dr. Sager cites to this Court's decision in Martinez-Sandoval v. Kirsch, 118 N.M. 616 , 884 P.2d 507 (Ct.App.1994), a case that did not involve the special statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse. See id. at 618 n. 1, 884 P.2d at 509 n. 1. In Martinez-Sandoval , we held that, in the case of a plaintiff who suffered alleged damages from venereal disease and pregnancy caused by the defendant, the statute of limitations began to run at the time the plaintiff realized, that these substantial injuries were caused by that defendant's alleged misconduct. Id. at 622 , 884 P.2d at 513 . Dr. Sager points out that in Martinez-Sandoval , we held that "[t]he limitations period is not tolled simply because a plaintiff does not know the full extent of her injury; the statute begins to run once she knows or should know sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.” Id. Although this is a correct recitation of the holding in that case, we believe that the factual context of that holding is different from the present case because Martinez-Sandoval addresses the general statute of limitations for torts resulting in physical injuries while in the present case we deal with a specialized statute that is particularly applicable to psychological injuries. In Martinez-Sandoval , we specifically stated that "regardless”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 356 F. Supp. 2d 1238 - Yruegas v. Vestal

2. “Action for damages due to childhood sexual abuse; limitation on actions. A. An action for damages based on personal injury caused by childhood sexual abuse shall be commenced by a person before the latest of the following dates: (1) the first instant of the person’s twenty-fourth birthday; or (2) three years from the date of the time that a person knew or had reason to know of the childhood sexual abuse and that the childhood sexual abuse resulted in an injury to the person, as established by competent medical or psychological testimony.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grygorwicz v. Trujillo

3. “Because there are differing permissible inferences that the fact finder could make . . . summary judgment was not proper in this case. The question of when [p]laintiff knew or had reason to know of the alleged abuse and its impact is a question for the jury to decide.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. Stewart