Kelley v. Barnett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “[s]ince the major dispute between the parties is a legal one rather than a factual one, we view this technical compliance [with Rule 141] as superfluous”
• finding that “reasonably ascertainable” means that a plaintiff has the obligation to reasonably investigate available sources that contain the facts of the injury and noting that “reasonably ascertainable” does not mean “actual knowledge.”
• viewing disputes over this technical compliance as superfluous when the major dispute between the parties is a legal one rather than a factual one
• rejecting the argument that “the causal connection between the injury and the negligence of the defendants must have been identifiable before the statute of limitations began to run”
• “If plaintiffs were allowed to wait to commence suit until directly confronted with evidence of negligence, the statute of limitations would almost never begin to run.”
• “If plaintiffs were allowed to wait to commence suit until directly confronted with evidence of negligence, the statute of limitations would almost never begin to run.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).