Foster v. Harris

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “no judicial remedy [is] available to [a] plaintiff until he [or she] discover[s], or reasonably should have discovered, (1) the occasion, the manner and means by which a breach of duty occurred that produced his [or her] injury; and (2
• holding that “no judicial remedy [is] available to [a] plaintiff until he [or she] discover[s], or reasonably should have discovered, (1) the occasion, the manner and means by which a breach of duty occurred that produced his [or her] injury; and (2
• “In this case, neither the injury nor the tortfeasor who perpetrated the injury were discovered until July 21, 1976.”
• “In this case, neither the injury nor the tort feasor who perpetrated the injury were discovered until July 21, 1976.” (Emphasis added.
• “The so-called ‘discovery doctrine’ was fashioned to alleviate the intolerable result of barring a cause of action by holding that it ‘accrued’ before the discovery of the injury or the wrong.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).