Legal Opinion

District of Columbia v. Dunmore

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided July 24, 1995No. 92-CV-754PublishedCited by 70 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TERRY, Associate Judge:

We are called upon in this case to decide whether the discovery rule adopted in Burns v. Bell, 409 A.2d 614 (D.C.1979), applies to the notice requirement of D.C.Code § 12-309 (1989) 1 in suits brought against the District of Columbia. The trial court ruled that the six months within which a plaintiff, under the statute, must give notice to the Mayor of a claim against the District did not begin to run until that plaintiff discovered that a claim had accrued. We hold, to the contrary, that the legislative purpose and the plain language of section 12-309 are incompatible…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Colbert v. Georgetown UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  2. Bussineau v. President of Georgetown CollegeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Ehrenhaft v. Malcolm Price, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Knight v. FurlowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Pitts v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by70 opinions

  1. Heron v. StraderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  2. Prince George's County v. LongtinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
  3. District of Columbia v. Arnold & PorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. JAIYEOLA v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Candido v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007

65 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