Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiffs suspicion that a particular drug caused her injuries triggered the statute of limitations
• holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
• explaining that summary judgment on statute of limitations issues is proper only “where uncon-tradicted facts established through discovery are susceptible to only one legitimate inference”
• noting that the limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff suspects, or through reasonable diligence should suspect, that the injury was caused by wrongdoing
• recognizing the persuasive import of American Pipe but finding class action tolling unavailable under the facts of the case
• noting that an action accrues on the date of injury, as modified only by the discovery rule, which “provides that the accrual date of a cause of action is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of her injury and its negligent cause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).