384 Pa. Super. 132 - Levenson v. Souser’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Barnes, Dalrymple v. Brown (1997)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 68 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. · Smith v. Bell Telephone Co. · Ayers v. Morgan · 324 Pa. Super. 123 - Cathcart v. Keene Industrial Insulation · Schaffer v. Larzelere
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, ‘through fraud or concealment, the defendant causes the plaintiff to relax his vigilance or deviate from his right of inquiry,’ the defendant is estopped from invoking the bar of the statute of limitations_ (Citation omitted.)_ [Defendant's conduct need not rise to fraud or concealment in the strictest sense, that is, with an intent to deceive; unintentional fraud or concealment is sufficient ... (Citations omitted.)_ Mere mistake, misunderstanding or lack of knowledge is insufficient however ... and the burden of proving such fraud or concealment, by evidence which is clear, precise, and convincing, is upon the asserting party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Since under the Cathcart formulation of the discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff has or reasonably could have discovered both the injury and that it was caused by the act of a third party, the statute of limitations applicable to a lack of informed consent action cannot begin to run until plaintiff did or reasonably could have discovered that the medical procedure has caused an injury of which the plaintiff was not warned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The now generally accepted formulation of the discovery rule provides that the discovery rule prevents the statute of limitations from running against the plaintiff until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know (1) that he or she has been injured, and (2) that this injury has been caused by another party’s conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.