application of the discovery rule in Maryland

2000This application of the discovery rule serves the legislative policy that underlies the statute of limitations, id. at 665 , 464 A.2d 1020 , and at the same time puts the discovery rule claimant on a par with the claimant who has actual knowledge at the time of the tort such as the normal automobile-accident plaintiff.

2000This application of the discovery rule serves the legislative policy that underlies the statute of limitations, id. at 665 , 464 A.2d 1020 , and at the same time puts the discovery rule claimant on a par with the claimant who has actual knowledge at the time of the tort such as the normal automobile-accident plaintiff.

2016A. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in Doe v. Maskell Nearly twenty years ago, the Court of Appeals addressed the application of the discovery rule to a case involving repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse in Maskell, supra, 342 Md. 684 , 679 A.2d 1087 .

2016A. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in Doe v. Maskell Nearly twenty years ago, the Court of Appeals addressed the application of the discovery rule to a case involving repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse in Maskell, supra, 342 Md. 684 , 679 A.2d 1087 .

2011For example, in Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258 , 761 A.2d 56 (2000), we cited favorably to District of Columbia v. Dunmore, 662 A.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C. 1995), which rejected the application of the discovery rule to the D.C. notice period for tort claims.

2011For example, in Heron v. Strader, 361 Md. 258 , 761 A.2d 56 (2000), we cited favorably to District of Columbia v. Dunmore, 662 A.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C. 1995), which rejected the application of the discovery rule to the D.C. notice period for tort claims.

2006Id at 35-36, 501 A.2d at 449 .

1985We believe that this ruling is entirely consistent with the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Anthony that the discovery rule will not be extended to the personal representative of one whose death resulted from the tortious conduct of another, and yet is in harmony with that body of Pennsylvania law relative to the application of the discovery rule in personal injury actions which has been in place for decades. [ 571 F.Supp. at 1168 .] The Redeker analysis that an undiscovered cause of action accrued for limitations purposes at death was followed in Powell v. Johns-Manville Corp., 34

1985We believe that this ruling is entirely consistent with the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Anthony that the discovery rule will not be extended to the personal representative of one whose death resulted from the tortious conduct of another, and yet is in harmony with that body of Pennsylvania law relative to the application of the discovery rule in personal injury actions which has been in place for decades. [ 571 F.Supp. at 1168 .] The Redeker analysis that an undiscovered cause of action accrued for limitations purposes at death was followed in Powell v. Johns-Manville Corp., 34

1985Concluding a diversity analysis of Pennsylvania law the court held: We believe, based on the foregoing, that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will read the statute in the light of the existing, and now well-established, law of Pennsylvania relative to the application of the discovery rule to personal injury actions and conclude that the statute commences to run when the victim had, or reasonably should have had, the knowledge set forth by the Superior Court in Anthony [v. Koppers, 284 Pa.Super. 81 ], 425 A.2d [428] at 436 [ (1980) ], but commences at the latest on the death of the victim, so tha

1985We believe that this ruling is entirely consistent with the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Anthony that the discovery rule will not be extended to the personal representative of one whose death resulted from the tortious conduct of another, and yet is in harmony with that body of Pennsylvania law relative to the application of the discovery rule in personal injury actions which has been in place for decades. [ 571 F.Supp. at 1168 .] The Redeker analysis that an undiscovered cause of action accrued for limitations purposes at death was followed in Powell v. Johns-Manville Corp., 34

1985We believe that this ruling is entirely consistent with the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Anthony that the discovery rule will not be extended to the personal representative of one whose death resulted from the tortious conduct of another, and yet is in harmony with that body of Pennsylvania law relative to the application of the discovery rule in personal injury actions which has been in place for decades. [ 571 F.Supp. at 1168 .] The Redeker analysis that an undiscovered cause of action accrued for limitations purposes at death was followed in Powell v. Johns-Manville Corp., 34

1980It is not an unreasonable hypothesis, however, despite the subsequent judicial expansions of the application of the discovery rule. [1] We are told that appellant's profession is that of schoolteacher. [2] In Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 76 , 394 A.2d 299 (1978), Chief Judge Murphy stated that "the general rule" is that limitations against a right or cause of action begin to run from the date of the alleged wrong and not from the time the wrong was discovered.

1980It is not an unreasonable hypothesis, however, despite the subsequent judicial expansions of the application of the discovery rule. [1] We are told that appellant's profession is that of schoolteacher. [2] In Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 76 , 394 A.2d 299 (1978), Chief Judge Murphy stated that "the general rule" is that limitations against a right or cause of action begin to run from the date of the alleged wrong and not from the time the wrong was discovered.

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).

1980In recent years, the application of the discovery rule by the Court of Appeals has reached well beyond the traditional "learned” professions and now applies in diverse professional settings: Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A.2d 904 (1969) (civil engineer); Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A.2d 177 (1969) (architect and contractor); Leonhart v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A.2d 1 (1972) and Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A.2d 421 (1969) (accountant).