Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 2005 version of N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46, the version relied on in the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss.” [¶ 10] Too much significance has been placed on the dates in Larson. Whether the commencement date of the case or the injury date is used was of no consequence in Larson because N.D.C.C. § 28-01-46 (1981) was in effect during both time periods. Larson stands only for the principle that between the commencement date and the date the defendant moves to dismiss, the commencement date controls. More germane authority to the present case is found in Fortier v. Traynor, 330 N.W.2d 513, 515-16 (N.D.1983). In Fortier, this Court held the applicable law in malpractice actions is the law in effect when the cause of action arises. Id. See also Hoffner, 2003 ND 79, ¶ 11, 660 N.W.2d 909 (<HOLDING>); State v. Dimmler, 456 N.W.2d 297, 298 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach (B) holding cause of action accrues when some compensable damage occurs (C) holding a cause of action accrues once an injury has occurred and manifested itself (D) recognizing that a cause of action accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff ascertains the nature and cause of his injury (E) holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
Output (English): recognizing that a cause of action accrues when a reasonably diligent plaintiff ascertains the nature and cause of his injury