Dr. Linda A. Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the statute of limitations is triggered at the negotiation of a check that is part of an embezzlement scheme
• finding that hundreds of “cashed or deposited . . . checks over an 85- month period” each constituted individual causes of action
• noting that the continuing-violation rule “does not apply to a series of discrete acts, each of which is independently actionable, even if those acts form an overall pattern of wrongdoing”
• noting -that the vast majority of jurisdictions have refused to apply the discovery rule to conversion claims
• describing the theory as applying where “a cause of action arises not from individually identifiable wrongs but rather from a series of acts considered collectively”
• same reasons to reject application of discovery rule to claims of check conversion also serve to reject application of continuing violation rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).