Cevenini v. Archbishop of Washington

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting the contention that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has “knowledge of each essential element of [a] cause of action”
• declining to apply discovery rule where plaintiff was “not actually aware of each essential element of his cause of action” but was aware of “(1) an injury, (2) its cause, and (3) some evidence of wrongdoing”
• “we are unwilling to hold that a failure to disclose information that has not even been requested constitutes fraudulent concealment”
• \[K]nowledge of misconduct on the part of one defendant will not automatically create inquiry notice of claims against a potential co-defendant[.]\
• “[W]e have never held that accrual should be tolled until the plaintiff fully appreciates the ‘impact’ of the harm directed at him.”
• “The fact that the plaintiff did not initially comprehend the full extent of all possible sequelae does not matter, for the law of limitations requires only that she have inquiry notice of the existence of a cause of action[.]” (citation modified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).