213 W. Va. 161 - McCoy v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Kubrick · 85 Ill. 2d 146 - Witherell v. Weimer · 194 W. Va. 770 - State Ex Rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc. · 199 W. Va. 706 - Gaither v. City Hospital, Inc. · 188 W. Va. 241 - Cart v. Marcum
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In tort actions, unless there is a clear statutory prohibition to its application, under the discovery rule the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should know (1) that the plaintiff has been injured, (2) the identity of the entity who owed the plaintiff a duty to act with due care, and who may have engaged in conduct that breached that duty, and (3) that the conduct of that entity has a causal relation to the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a plaintiff knows of his injury, and the facts surrounding that injury place him on notice of the possible breach of a duty of care, that plaintiff has an affirmative duty to further and fully investigate the facts surrounding that potential breach.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we did not eliminate the affirmative duty the law imposes on a plaintiff to discover or make inquiry to discern additional facts about his injury when placed on notice of the possibility of wrongdoing. The crux of the “discovery rule” has always been to benefit those individuals who were either unaware of their injuries or prevented from discovering them. See Cart, 188 W.Va. at 244-45 , 423 S.E.2d at 647-48 ; Gaither, 199 W.Va. at 713 , 487 S.E.2d at 908 (recognizing that “discovery rule has its origins in the fact that many times an injured party is unable to know of the existence of any injury or its cause”). When this Court augmented the application of the “discovery rule” to eases beyond those where the defendant actively sought to prevent the discovery of the malfeasance, we did not eradicate the rule’s additional objective of benefitting those individuals who were unaware of their injuries due to no fault of their own.”
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.