Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ames v. Hehner

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 17, 1989No. 86-915Published

1DissentShanahan, J.

In an ironic 180° maneuver, this court has transformed the discovery doctrine, previously an equitable solution to the harshly literal onus of a statute of limitations, into a more severe burden on one who, through diligence, discovers a previously undiscovered cause of action. Whereas equitable consideration, inherent in the discovery doctrine, formerly assisted and protected the diligent, today the majority of this court molds the discovery doctrine into a hindrance and peril to the diligent.

I agree with one conclusion reached by this court’s majority, namely, Ames did not discover, and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. McKinneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  2. Spath v. MorrowNebraska Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Johansen v. Union Stock Yards Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Thiel v. TAURUS DRILLING LTD. 1980-IIMontana Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Shew v. Coon Bay Loafers, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1969

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API