Hing-Har Lo v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “positive, physical or mental hurt to the claimant, not legal wrong to him in the broad sense that his legally protected interests have been invaded”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Adams v. Am. Optical Corp. · Murtha v. Cahalan

2. “[L]ike the plaintiff in Locke , Burke suffered a physical hurt only when the cancer developed. Since there is no evidence here showing when that occurred, Dr. Lo has failed to meet her burden of proving when Burke sustained the injury. We disagree with Dr. Lo’s contention that our decision in Scarpa v. Melzig, 237 Va. 509 , 379 S.E.2d 307 (1989), compels a different result. In Scarpa , we held that the statute of limitations begins to run when any injury, though slight, is sustained as the consequence of an alleged wrong, despite the fact that greater damage from the same wrong may be sustained at a later date. Id. at 512 , 379 S.E.2d at 309 .... In contrast, in the present case, there is no evidence that Burke suffered any positive, physical or mental hurt at or near the time she submitted to the CT scan procedure. Rather, the only evidence of injury is the onset of cancer in her pancreas. Thus, under the principles expressed in Locke and Scarpa , Burke did not sustain an injury, and the statute of limitations did not begin to run, until her cyst became malignant. We also emphasize that, by this analysis, we do not adopt in a case such as this a so-called “discovery” rule in which the limitation period does not begin to run until the initial diagnosis is made or is communicated to the injured person. Instead, we hold only that the cause of action accrues when such an injury actually occurs. Locke, 221 Va. at 959 , 275 S.E.2d at 905-06 ; but cf. Code § 8.01-249. Thus, under t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hollingsworth v. Shenandoah Medical Imaging, Inc.

3. “In every action for which a limitation period is prescribed, the right of action shall be deemed to accrue and the prescribed limitation period shall begin to run from the date the injury is sustained in the case of injury to the person or damage to property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bay Point Condominium Ass'n v. RML Corp.