District of Columbia v. Dunmore
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
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
- Colbert v. Georgetown UniversityDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
- Bussineau v. President of Georgetown CollegeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Ehrenhaft v. Malcolm Price, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Knight v. FurlowDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1989
- Pitts v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Heron v. StraderCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Prince George's County v. LongtinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- District of Columbia v. Arnold & PorterDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- JAIYEOLA v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- Candido v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.