906 F. Supp. 2d 802 - Gross v. Max’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district · 1 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 Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court [have] consistently held that the application of the discovery rule should be judged on a case-by-case analysis. In 1971, the Seventh Circuit held that “[i]n certain instances, the critical date [for the statute of limitations] is the point at which the injury becomes ap parent.” Cooper v. U.S., 442 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir.1971) (emphasis added). Deciding whether a particular case was one of those “certain instances” depended on “[t]he particular policies of the statute of limitations in question, as well as the nature of the wrongful conduct and harm alleged.” Id. In Stoleson v. United States, 629 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir.1980), the court held that “the applicability of the discovery rule” depends on “the nature of the problems faced by a plaintiff in discovering his injury and its cause.” Id. at 1269 . Thus, the discovery rule applies to a claim “that could not have been discovered by the date on which it arose.” Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 599 F.3d 728, 734 (7th Cir.2010)[, reh’g denied, reh’g en banc denied, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 895 , 131 S.Ct. 322 , 178 L.Ed.2d 146 (2010) ] (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC

2. “Notwithstanding subsection (a), a private right of action that involves a claim of fraud, deceit, manipulation, or contrivance in contravention of a regulatory requirement concerning the securities laws ... may be brought not later than the earlier of— (1) 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation; or (2) 5 years after such violation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Rasmusson v. Chisago County

3. “the discovery rule does not automatically apply to every federal statute”; “whether the discovery rule applies in any given case depends on the particular language of the statute of limitations at issue and the type of injury the plaintiff has suffered”; and'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 9 F. Supp. 3d 1046 - Mallak v. Aitkin County