Roe v. Jefferson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [the plaintiff] was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule,” and thus defendant was entitled to summary judgment
• concluding that “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [the plaintiff] was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule,” and thus defendant was entitled to summary judgment
• affirming summary judgment where “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [plaintiff] was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule”
• affirming summary judgment where “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [plaintiff] Roe was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule”
• affirming judgment as a matter of law when “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [the plaintiff] was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule”
• affirming judgment as a matter of law when “no reasonable trier of fact could find that [the plaintiff] was unaware that she had suffered an injury for purposes of the discovery rule”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).