Sopko v. Dowell Schlumberger, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \Sopko had 'sufficient information' to start an inquiry into his cause of action [directly after the incident] even though the full extent of his injury was not revealed until 1995\
• noting that courts have limited duty to advise pro se litigants of procedural defects in pleadings
• noting that injured party need not know full extent of injuries before statute of limitations begins to run under discovery rule}. 22 . Howarth, 540 P.2d at 491. 23 . Dayhoff v. Temsco Helicopters, Inc., 772 P.2d 1085, 1087 (Alaska 1989
• \[UJnder the discovery rule it is irrelevant if the full scope of injury is not known immediately.\
• ʺ[I]t is irrelevant that the full extent of his injuries did not become apparent until later.ʺ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).