Tagliente v. Himmer’s Empirical Analysis
949 F.2d 1 · 1991
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 37 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Cambridge Plating Co. v. Napco, Inc. (1996), Blue Cross Blue Shield v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (2009)
13 federal appellate · 37 district · 9 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · United States v. Kubrick · Urie v. Thompson · Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Pennsylvania Co v. Chamberlain
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.
“a claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the factual basis for the cause of action. The standard is an objective one; in order to toll the statute of limitations pursuant to the discovery rule, the factual basis for the cause of action must have been inherently unknowable at the time of injury. The factual basis for a cause of action is inherently unknowable if it is incapable of detection by the wronged party through the exercise of reasonable diligence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[t]he objectionable conduct must attain a level of rascality that would raise an eyebrow of someone inured to the rough and tumble of the world of commerce.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“special deal” for the purchasers of these units, involving reduced application and attorneys’ fees. 18 . Summary judgment is allowed against these plaintiffs on Count X as no reasonable jury could find the alleged misrepresentations "to be so deceptive to rise to the level of rascality required to establish a 93A claim.”
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.