Brin v. S.E.W. Investors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “two distinct questions may be involved” in evaluating the discovery rule: the “the first is what facts are sufficient to put a plaintiff on ‘inquiry notice’” and “[t]he second is what must be discoverable by such an investigation”
• discussing medical opinion of physician without mentioning a requirement that the physician be a specialist
• A plaintiff is charged with inquiry notice when they know facts “sufficient to trigger the obligation to make a reasonable investigation into the possible existence of a 46 cause of action.”
• “[W]ith some medical opinion that the perceived evidence of wrongdoing is a plausible cause of the illness, the plaintiff can be expected to promptly seek additional medical and legal advice to illuminate the causal issue.”
• “To expand briefly upon the phrase ‘plausible cause,’ we contemplate that the plaintiff will have received medical advice that specifically identifies the wrongdoing of the defendant to be included among the reasonably possible causes of her maladies . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).