Brunea v. Gustin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “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 · from the majority
   e.g. 423 Pa. Super. 304 - A. McD. v. Rosen

2. “The following actions and proceedings must he commenced within two years: ... (2) An action to recover damages for injuries to the person or for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence or negligence of another.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 828 F. Supp. 365 - Hall v. City of Philadelphia

3. “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5533(a) states: Except as otherwise provided by statute, insanity or imprisonment does not extend the time limited by this subchapter for the commencement of a matter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 828 F. Supp. 365 - Hall v. City of Philadelphia