Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 930 SW2D 152 - Ellert v. Lutz

Ellert v. Lutz’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
December 2007
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 162nd Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority · Gulbenkian v. Penn · Gibbs v. General Motors Corporation · McConnell v. Southside Independent School District

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

  1. “To be “inherently undiscoverable”, an injury need not be absolutely impossible to discover, else suit would never be filed and the question of whether to apply the discovery rule would never arise. Nor does “inherently undiscoverable” mean merely that a particular plaintiff did not discover his injury within the prescribed period of limitations; discovery of a particular injury is dependent not solely on the nature of the injury but on the circumstances in which it occurred and plaintiffs diligence as well. An injury is inherently undiscov-erable if it is by nature unlikely to be discovered loithin the prescribed limitations period despite due diligence.”
    1 later decision 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.