Legal Opinion

Sharkey v. Barber

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided February 16, 2016No. 2015-CA-00518-COAPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ISHEE, J.,

for the Court:

¶ 1. Under section 15-l-49(2)’s discovery rule, in actions “involvpng] latent injury or disease, the cause of action does not accrue *1246until the plaintiff `has discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury."1 But this provision only applies to "actions for which no other period of limitation is prescribed[.]"2 Here, the three causes of action Chris Starkey asserted against Frank Barber were intentional torts, subject to section 15-1--35's prescribed one-year limitation period.3 So seôtion 15.-1-49(2)'s discovery rule did not apply.4 Instead,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Scaggs v. GPCH-GP, INC.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Robinson v. CobbMississippi Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Staheli v. SmithMississippi Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Jones v. FLUOR DANIEL SERVICES CORP.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2010
  5. Charlie Raddin v. Manchester Educational Foundation, Inc.Mississippi Supreme Court · 2015

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Charles Bradley Carson v. Kimberly (Carson) Linley and Jay Howard HurdleMississippi Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Higginbotham Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Joshua R. Smith and Ross & Yerger Insurance Inc.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2026
  3. Intent Performance LLC v. Intent Sports & Fitness, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API