Tenth Circuit· 9/12/2008

Dummar v. Lummis

Citations

543 F.3d 614
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19513
2008 WL 4183338

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).

Judges: Murphy, Hartz, Gorsuch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.