Fine v. Checcio

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant dentists were not entitled to summary judgment in malpractice actions commenced more than two years after the relevant dental procedures, where factual questions remained as to the plaintiffs' diligence
• holding that defendant dentists were not entitled to summary judgment in malpractice actions commenced more than two years after the relevant dental procedures, where factual questions remained as to the plaintiffs’ diligence
• holding that “the question as to when a party’s injury and its cause were discovered or discoverable is for the jury”
• holding that summary judgment is inappropriate when there is a genuine issue of material fact of whether the statute of limitations was tolled
• holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs claims brought by pretrial detainees
• holding that because application of the discovery rule “involves a factual question as to whether a party was able, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, to know of his injury and its cause, ordinarily, a jury is to decide it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).