context: The concurrence argues that the Court "retreats" from its decisions in Computer Assocs. In most discovery rule cases, courts are faced with common-law causes of action and general statutes of limitations. We held in Altai and confirmed in S.V. v. R.V. that the elements of inherent undiscoverability and objective verifiability "balance the conflicting policies in statutes of limitations: the benefits of precluding stale or spurious claims versus the risks of precluding meritorious claims that happen to fall outside an arbitrarily set period."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 699 S.W.2d 205, 208
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he Legislature's intent in passing Art. 4590i, SS 10.01, was to abolish the discovery rule in cases governed by the Medical Liability Act"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985) (“[T]he Legislature’s intent in passing Art. 4590i, § 10.01, was to abolish the discovery rule in cases governed by the Medical Liability Act”); cf. Neagle v. Nelson, 685 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex.1985) (holding that former article 4590i, section 10.01 violated the open courts provision when it abridged the right to sue before the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 685 S.W.2d 11, 12
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that former article 4590i, section 10.01 violated the open courts provision when it abridged the right to sue before the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Morrison v. Chan, 699 S.W.2d 205, 208 (Tex.1985) (“[T]he Legislature’s intent in passing Art. 4590i, § 10.01, was to abolish the discovery rule in cases governed by the Medical Liability Act”); cf. Neagle v. Nelson, 685 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Tex.1985) (holding that former article 4590i, section 10.01 violated the open courts provision when it abridged the right to sue before the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the wrong).