Diamond v. Davis
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFerren, Associate Judge
I concur in the judgment to affirm but dissent from the majority’s formulation of the standard of notice that applies in a case of fraudulent concealment. The majority applies the traditional discovery rule in which the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff has “inquiry notice” of the claim. I believe that when there is fraudulent concealment, as in this case, a higher standard of notice, called “heightened notice,” is required before the statute begins to run. This higher standard is necessary to compensate for the fraud that masks the claim. Even applying this higher…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Hobson v. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,975 Michelle K. Tomera, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Arthur T. Galt, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1975
- A. Ernest Fitzgerald v. Robert C. Seamans, Jr.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1977
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,100 Donald J. Robertson v. Seidman & SeidmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1979
- Robert James Richards v. Milton Stanley Mileski (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.