430 Pa. Super. 129 - Ingenito v. AC & S, INC.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Dalrymple v. Brown (1997), Childs v. Haussecker (1998)
4 federal appellate · 46 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 United States v. Kubrick · Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc. · In re the Primary Election of May 21, 1991 · Karis v. Karis · Ayers v. Morgan
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Mr. Ingenito’s] history of industrial exposure to asbestos was known to him and to the physician who made the diagnosis. The exercise of reasonable diligence would have suggested that Ingénito inquire of his physician concerning the cause of his illness. This information was immediately knowable and available to him. It was not a diagnosis or a cause which was obscure, unascertainable or unavailable in the exercise of due diligence.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““As a matter of general rule, a party asserting a cause of action is under a duty to use all reasonable diligence to be properly informed of the facts and circumstances upon which a potential right of recovery is based and to institute suit within the prescribed statutory period. Thus, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do[es] not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See: Nesbitt v. Erie Coach Co., 416 Pa. 89 , 204 A.2d 473 (1964). See also: A. McD. v. Rosen, M.D., supra [423 Pa.Super.] at 307, 621 A.2d at 130 . In general, the statutory period will begin to run when the cause of action accrues, i.e., the date on which the injury is sustained. Pounds v. Lehman, M.D., 384 Pa.Super. 358, 361 , 558 A.2d 872, 873 , allocatur denied, 523 Pa. 643 , 565 A.2d 1167 (1989). An injury is done “ ‘when the act heralding a possible tort inflicts a damage which is physically objective and ascertainable.’ ” Id., quoting Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. 282, 290 , 154 A.2d 788, 792 (1959).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“decedent, had he lived, could not himself have recovered for the injuries sustained.” Id. Due to Sallie Smith's failure to file suit within the statutory period, Aaron Smith now cannot bring a wrongful death claim. 5 . Interestingly, in Murray, the plaintiffs raised the claim that even if their causes of action for HIV infection are time-barred, the court should apply the”
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.