360 Pa. Super. 430 - REDENZ BY REDENZ v. Rosenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Elizabeth Arnold Lake v. Frederick S. Arnold (2000), Dalrymple v. Brown (1997)
4 federal appellate · 28 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 Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc. · 351 Pa. Super. 264 - Burnside v. Abbott Laboratories · Walters v. Ditzler · 334 Pa. Super. 36 - Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Walker v. Mummert
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard of reasonable diligence is an objective or external one that is the same for all individuals. It is not a subjective standard. The fact that this individual plaintiff may have lacked knowledge of his or her injury is “irrelevant,” “the statute is tolled only if a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position would have been unaware of the salient facts.” In defining reasonable diligence, the courts have stated “[tjhere are very few facts which diligence cannot discover, but there must be some reason to awaken inquiry and direct diligence in the channel in which it would be successful. This is what is meant by reasonable diligence.” Moreover, with respect to knowledge of a claim, “plaintiffs need not know that they have a cause of action, or that the injury was caused by another party’s wrongful conduct, for once a plaintiff possesses the salient facts concerning the occurrence of his injury and who or what caused it, he has the ability to investigate and pursue his claim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(b) Infancy. If an individual entitled to bring a civil action is an unemancipated minor at the time the cause of action accrues, the period of minority shall not be deemed a portion of the time period within which the action must be commenced. Such person shall have the same time for commencing an action after attaining majority as is allowed to others by the provisions of this subchapter. As used in this subsection the term "minor” shall mean any individual who has not yet attained the age of 18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dalrymple v. Brown“It does not matter whether a plaintiff is aware that someone may be legally responsible for his injury. Once he knows or should know the cause of that injury he must investigate the situation and ascertain who might be legally culpable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.