issue in Lowery and in this case focuses the inquiry only on the plaintiff's discovery of a latent injury, as compared to the state's medical malpractice discovery rule, Miss.Code Ann. § 15-1-36, which inquires more comprehensively as to when the “patient can reasonably be held to have knowledge of the injury itself, the cause of the injury, and the causative relationship between the injury and the conduct of the medical practitioner.” Huss v. Gayden, 991 So.2d 162, 165 (Miss.2008) (quoting Smith v. Sanders, 485 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Miss.1986) (emphasis omitted)). 14 . Lowery, 909 So.2d at 51. 15 . Huss, 991 So.2d at 166 ("Application of the discovery rule is a fact-intensive process.”) (citation omitted). 16 . See Thomas v. Miss. Valley Gas Co., 237 Miss. 100, 113 So.2d 535, 538 (1959) (<HOLDING>). 17 . See Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §
holding that a violation of a state statute regarding the swearing of criminal complaints does not give rise to constitutional liability holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that puffing does not give rise to fraud liability under mississippi law holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages