Carrie Corcoran Eugene Corcoran Carrie Corcoran v. New York Power Authority Wedco Corp Westinghouse Electric Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably 815 F. Supp. 2d 679 - Mosdos Chofetz Chaim, Inc. v. Village of Wesley Hills (2011), 120 F. Supp. 2d 328 - In Re Sumitomo Copper Litigation (2000)
3 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Wilson v. Garcia · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Silkwood v. Corporation
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant wrongfully concealed material facts relating to defendant’s wrongdoing; (2) the concealment prevented plaintiffs discovery of the nature of the claim within the limitations period; and (3) plaintiff exercised due diligence in pursuing the discovery of the claim during the period plaintiff seeks to have tolled.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A fraud action is not incidental only when: (1) the fraud occurred separately from and subsequent to the injury forming the basis of the alternate claim; and (2) the injuries caused by the fraud are distinct from the injuries caused by the alternate claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[djiscovery of the “critical facts” of injury and causation is not an exacting requirement, but requires only knowledge of, or knowledge that could lead to, the basic facts of the injury ... [A] claim will accrue when the plaintiff knows, or should know, enough of the critical facts of injury and causation to protect himself by seeking legal advice. A claim does not accrue when a person has a mere hunch, hint, suspicion, or rumor of a claim but such suspicions do give rise to a duty to inquire into the possible existence of a claim in the exercise of due diligence. -”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.