Legal Opinion

Doe v. Maskell

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided July 29, 1996No. 102, Sept. Term, 1995PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KARWACKI, Judge.

In this case we are asked to decide whether the “discovery-rule” applicable to the time-bar of the statute of limitations on civil actions at law found in Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol.), § 5-101 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, 1 applies to cases of allegedly “repressed” and “recovered” memories. We hold that repression of memories is an insufficient trigger to compel the application of our discovery rule, and we shall affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants.

I

Reviewing the record in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the facts…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Poffenberger v. RisserCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  3. Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  4. Reed v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1978
  5. Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Haas v. Lockheed Martin Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Dalrymple v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Buxton v. BuxtonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  4. Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
  5. Doe v. Archdiocese of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997

30 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