applicability of the discovery rule in Maryland

6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2016 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Poffenberger v. Rissergreen md · 1981 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1997–2002 2 sentences 2002See also Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 636 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981)(extending the applicability of the discovery rule in the context of statutes of limitations to all causes of actions). 2002See also Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631, 636 , 431 A.2d 677 (1981)(extending the applicability of the discovery rule in the context of statutes of limitations to all causes of actions).	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Doe v. Maskell green md · 1996 2 sentences 2016The Court identified the issue before it as “whether the ‘discovery rule’ applicable to the time-bar of the statute of limitations on civil actions at law ... applies to cases of allegedly ‘repressed’ and ‘recovered’ memories.” Id. at 686 , 679 A.2d 1087 . 7 The Court found that “the critical question to the determination of the applicability of the discovery rule to lost memory cases is whether there is a difference between forgetting and repression.” Id. at 691 , 679 A.2d 1087 . 2016The Court identified the issue before it as “whether the ‘discovery rule’ applicable to the time-bar of the statute of limitations on civil actions at law ... applies to cases of allegedly ‘repressed’ and ‘recovered’ memories.” Id. at 686 , 679 A.2d 1087 . 7 The Court found that “the critical question to the determination of the applicability of the discovery rule to lost memory cases is whether there is a difference between forgetting and repression.” Id. at 691 , 679 A.2d 1087 .	1	2016–2016
Trimper v. Porter-Hayden green md · 1985 2 sentences 2000In Trimper v. Porter-Hayden 305 Md. 31 , 501 A.2d 446 (1985), we were concerned with an issue of the applicability of the discovery rule, that applies in respect to general statutes of limitations, when a statutorily created action contains a special provision requiring the specific action to be filed within a prescribed period of time. 2000In Trimper v. Porter-Hayden 305 Md. 31 , 501 A.2d 446 (1985), we were concerned with an issue of the applicability of the discovery rule, that applies in respect to general statutes of limitations, when a statutorily created action contains a special provision requiring the specific action to be filed within a prescribed period of time.	1	2000–2000
Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. green md · 1978 2 sentences 1994As we said in Harig, supra, it is the “inherently unknowable” character of the injury that is the critical factor that governs the applicability of the discovery rule. 284 Md. at 80 , 394 A.2d 299 . 1994As we said in Harig, supra, it is the “inherently unknowable” character of the injury that is the critical factor that governs the applicability of the discovery rule. 284 Md. at 80 , 394 A.2d 299 .	1	1994–1994
Leonhart v. Atkinson green md · 1972 2 sentences 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972). 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972).	1	1978–1978
Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee green md · 1969 1 sentence 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972).	1	1978–1978
Cross v. Hair green del · 1969 1 sentence 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972).	1	1978–1978
Watson v. Dorsey green md · 1972 2 sentences 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972). 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972).	1	1978–1978
Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price green md · 1969 2 sentences 1978In Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A. 2d 904 (1969), involving an action against a civil engineering firm to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation, we said at 94-95: “We see no basic distinction between the application 79 of the ‘discovery rule’ in a medical malpractice case and in the instant case, which assuming that engineering is a profession, is in essence a professional malpractice situation.” Similarly, in Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price, 254 Md. 697 , 255 A. 2d 359 (1969), a case involving a claim of professional malpractice against an attorney, 1978In Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A. 2d 904 (1969), involving an action against a civil engineering firm to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation, we said at 94-95: “We see no basic distinction between the application 79 of the ‘discovery rule’ in a medical malpractice case and in the instant case, which assuming that engineering is a profession, is in essence a professional malpractice situation.” Similarly, in Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price, 254 Md. 697 , 255 A. 2d 359 (1969), a case involving a claim of professional malpractice against an attorney,	1	1978–1978
Mattingly v. Hopkins green md · 1969 2 sentences 1978In Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A. 2d 904 (1969), involving an action against a civil engineering firm to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation, we said at 94-95: “We see no basic distinction between the application 79 of the ‘discovery rule’ in a medical malpractice case and in the instant case, which assuming that engineering is a profession, is in essence a professional malpractice situation.” Similarly, in Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price, 254 Md. 697 , 255 A. 2d 359 (1969), a case involving a claim of professional malpractice against an attorney, 1978In Mattingly v. Hopkins, 254 Md. 88 , 253 A. 2d 904 (1969), involving an action against a civil engineering firm to recover damages for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation, we said at 94-95: “We see no basic distinction between the application 79 of the ‘discovery rule’ in a medical malpractice case and in the instant case, which assuming that engineering is a profession, is in essence a professional malpractice situation.” Similarly, in Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price, 254 Md. 697 , 255 A. 2d 359 (1969), a case involving a claim of professional malpractice against an attorney,	1	1978–1978
Feldman v. Granger green md · 1969 2 sentences 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972). 1978Subsequently, we recognized the applicability of the discovery rule to cases of accounting malpractice, Leonhardt v. Atkinson, 265 Md. 219 , 289 A. 2d 1 (1972); Feldman v. Granger, 255 Md. 288 , 257 A. 2d 421 (1969), and reiterated its applicability to architectural, Steelworkers Holding Co. v. Menefee, 255 Md. 440 , 258 A. 2d 277 (1969), and legal malpractice, Watson v. Dorsey, 265 Md. 509 , 290 A. 2d 530 (1972).	1	1978–1978

Where else courts name it

TX 60 (1977–2026) IL 22 (1970–2022) PA 15 (1980–2025) UT 15 (2004–2018) WA 7 (1969–2018) NH 6 (1983–2019) MS 6 (2001–2020) MD 6 (1978–2016) OH 6 (1983–2023) TN 5 (2001–2020) AK 4 (1984–1991) NJ 3 (1976–2010) IA 3 (1979–1998) WV 3 (1997–2018) OR 2 (1994–2013) IN 2 (2003–2016) NE 2 (1998–2005) OK 2 (2016–2016) ND 2 (2010–2023) NM 2 (1998–1998) CA 2 (1977–1991) RI 2 (1992–2011)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check