Young v. Enerpac’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Trial Court dismissed the action and found the Complaint should have been filed before June 21, 2006, but it was not filed until June 23, 2006. The Court found that Young’s medical records showed that on the day of the accident, he demonstrated an awareness of the facts of his accident sufficient to put him on notice of a potential cause of action, and found that the discovery rule was inapplicable to the facts of this case.... Plaintiff argues that the discovery rule is applicable to the facts of this case to toll the statute of limitations. He states that he underwent surgery and was under anesthesia, and could not appreciate his injuries nor the cause thereof until a few days after his accident. Both parties agree that Woods v. Sherwin-Williams, 666 S.W.2d 77 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983), appropriately presents the history of the discovery rule as it has developed in this state. In Woods , this Court explained that the discovery rule was developed to prevent plaintiffs from being barred from filing a claim before they even knew it existed. Id. This Court further stated the substance of the rule as: the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations commences to run when the injury occurs or is discovered, or when in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, it should have been discovered. Id., quoting McCroskey v. Bryant Air Conditioning Company, 524 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn.1975). The Supreme Court has expounded on the rule as follows: [T]he one-year statute of limitations”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mills v. Booth