Timmel v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
803 F.2d 519 · 1986
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2004
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic · 18 Cal. 3d 93 - Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital · 39 Cal. 3d 892 - Gutierrez v. Mofid
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining when an action has accrued under a discovery-based statute of limitations, '[t]he question of when [the alleged wrongdoing] was or should have been discovered is a question of fact. It may be decided as a matter of law only when uncontroverted evidence irrefutably demonstrates plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the fraudulent conduct.' " Id. (citation omitted). 7 We have held that "[w]here the cause of action was belatedly discovered, the issue whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence is a question of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.