225 W. Va. 43 - Dunn v. Rockwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lydick v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. · Dennis R. Richards, Jr. v. Andrew Walker, Chief of Police of the Town of Grantsville, etc.

2. “First, the court should identify the applicable statute of limitation for each cause of action. Second, the court (or, if material questions of fact exist, the jury) should identify when the requisite elements of the cause of action occurred. Third, the discovery rule should be applied to determine when the statute of limitation began to run by determining when the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the elements of a possible cause of action, ... Fourth, if the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the discovery rule, then determine whether the defendant fraudulently concealed facts that prevented the plaintiff from discovering or pursuing the cause of action. Whenever a plaintiff is able to show that the defendant fraudulently concealed facts which prevented the plaintiff from discovering or pursuing the potential cause of action, the statute of limitation is tolled. And fifth, the court or the jury should determine if the statute of limitation period was arrested by some other tolling doctrine.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Parsons v. Standard Insurance Co. · Lydick v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co.

3. “[a] civil conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish some purpose, not in itself unlawful, by unlawful means. The cause of action is not created by the conspiracy but by the wrongful acts done by the defendants to the injury of the plaintiff.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Jane Doe-1 v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints · Croye v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.