Golla v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that delayed claims will prejudice defendants as more time elapses because witnesses’ memories fade and evidence becomes unavailable
• declining to apply discovery rule where plaintiff knew of some injuries at the time of automobile accident
• distinguishing cases where the plaintiffs could have “reasonably assumed that physical injuries arising during the course of medical treatment were simply a natural consequence of their preexisting illness, rather than the result of negligent conduct”
• if only one conclusion can be drawn from undisputed facts, timeliness of complaint becomes a question of law
• “There is no requirement that a plaintiff must discover the full extent of her injuries before the statute of limitations begins to run.”
• if only one conclusion can be drawn from undisputed facts, timeliness of complaint becomes a question of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).