Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• Holding that the discovery rule did not apply to one group of plaintiffs who were aware of abuse at the time it occurred, and a separate plaintiff that repressed all memory of sexual abuse
• Finding that two-year period of limitations began to run at the time alleged sexual abuse occurred
• “Plaintiffs are really claiming that they were unaware, not of their injury, but of a secondary cause of their injury (the primary cause being the individual who committed the abuse.)”
• “for a cause of action to accrue, the entire theory of the case need not be immediately apparent [...] as soon as [Appellants] became aware of the alleged abuse, they should also have been aware that the [Appellees], as the priests’ employers, were potentially liable for that abuse.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).