Waters v. Rosenbloom

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even “in a continuous tort, a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, both the injury and the cause thereof.”
• not reaching appellants’ argument that Court should apply the continuing tort doctrine to the medical malpractice statute of repose
• in malpractice case against physician, suit was barred because plaintiff “knew or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the injur/’ and its cause, despite the existence of a confidential relationship
• action was barred by the five-year statute of repose because the plaintiff knew or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury and the cause of such injury before the five years preceding the filing of the action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).