Merck & Co. v. Reynolds
559 U.S. ___ (2010)

Annotate this Case

559 U. S. ____ (2010)
559 U. S. ____ (2010)
559 U. S. ____ (2010)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 08-905

MERCK & CO., INC., et al., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD REYNOLDS et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit

[April 27, 2010]

   Justice Stevens, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

   In my opinion the Court’s explanation of why the complaint was timely filed is convincing and correct. Ante, at 12–19. In this case there is no difference between the time when the plaintiffs actually discovered the factual basis for their claim and the time when reasonably diligent plaintiffs should have discovered those facts. For that reason, much of the discussion in Part II of the Court’s opinion, see ante, at 8–12, is not necessary to support the Court’s judgment. Until a case arises in which the difference between an actual discovery rule and a constructive discovery rule would affect the outcome, I would reserve decision on the merits of Justice Scalia’s argument, post, at 1–7 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). With this reservation, I join the Court’s excellent opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.