Dummar v. Lummis

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that when “the answer is apparent on the face of the complaint, [an affirmative defense] may be resolved on a motion to dismiss”
• declining to decide whether Utah or Nevada law applies because the states’ laws were substantially similar in all relevant respects
• denying an assertion of fraudulent concealment because plaintiff did not plead an element that overlapped with those of the underlying cause of action
• noting that plaintiff “has also not alleged the due diligence necessary to satisfy the third element. The Complaint is completely silent as to any efforts that [plaintiff] made to uncover his cause of action during the first 26 years after the probate trial.”
• “Dummar has made no attempt on appeal to show that he pleaded the elements of fraudulent concealment.”
• it is the “discovery of the injury, not discovery of the other elements of a claim” that “starts the clock” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).