# Merck & Co. v. Reynolds

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 27, 2010 · 559 U.S. 633

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416249

## Case

- **Full name:** MERCK & CO., INC., Et Al. v. REYNOLDS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 27, 2010
- **Citations:** 559 U.S. 633; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 263; 78 U.S.L.W. 4319; 130 S. Ct. 1784; 176 L. Ed. 2d 582; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 3671
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stevens
- **Judges:** Scalia, Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Auto, Sotomayor, Stevens, Thomas
- **Cited by:** 431 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416249

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a reasonable plaintiff would have discovered defendant’s intent, and, in response to defendant’s “fears that this requirement will give life to stale claims or subject defendants to liability for acts taken lo…
- holding that a warning letter released to the public and pleadings in a prior lawsuit did not trigger limitations period because they raised only the possibility of fraud in general terms and did not contain “any specific information suggesting the fraud”
- holding that a cause of action accrues in a private securities action “(1) when the plaintiff did in fact discover, or (2) when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, ‘the facts constituting the violation’ — whichever comes first”
- holding that a cause of action accrues "when the plaintiff did in fact -49- discover," or "when a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered, 'the facts constituting the violation' -- whichever comes first." (emphasis added)
- holding that a private securities fraud claim is timely if the complaint is filed "no more than two years after the plaintiffs 'discovered the facts constituting the violation.' " (brackets omitted) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b)(1) )

## Opinion text

*655 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 648-654. 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 644-648, 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, this page (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment). With this reservation, I join the Court’s excellent opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416249. Public record. Not legal advice.