Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that statute of limitations was not tolled by fraudulent concealment doctrine where plaintiff did not allege any acts subsequent to the abuse that prevented him from being aware of his claims
• concluding that statute of limitations was not tolled by fraudulent concealment doctrine where plaintiff did not allege any acts subsequent to the abuse that prevented him from being aware of his claims
• holding that compensable harm occurs at time of child sexual abuse regardless of whether the victim is aware that the act is wrong or of the full extent of the harm
• holding that compensable harm occurs at time of child sexual abuse regardless of whether the victim is aware that the act is wrong or of the full extent of the harm
• stating that “fraudulent concealment requires that the complaint articulate how the plaintiff learned of the fraud, and why a diligent plaintiff could not discover it sooner”
• stating that once a plaintiff is aware that it has been harmed, “a potential plaintiff is charged with responsibility for investigating, within the limitations period, all potential claims and all potential defendants with regard to the injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).