Court of Appeals of Maryland· 4/14/2000

Lumsden v. Design Tech Builders, Inc.

Citations

749 A.2d 796
358 Md. 435
2000 Md. LEXIS 172

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that “a statute of limitations generally is not delayed by any period of investigation to ascertain the precise cause of the injury”
explaining that “a statute of limitations generally is not delayed by any period of investigation to ascertain the precise cause of the injury”
opining that the circuit court appropriately ruled that the petitioner’s claims were time barred
holding the plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranty claim was time-barred because the limitations period was triggered when they noticed a defect in their driveway, not months later when they discovered who was responsible
“Section 10-204(d) mandates that the period for a cause of action under this subtitle commences when the cause of action was discovered or should have been discovered.”
“[W]e now hold the discovery rule to be applicable generally in all actions and the cause of action accrues when the claimant in fact knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Eldridge, Rodowsky, Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Bloom

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 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.