RICHARD J. DEMPSEY v. ELAINE ROUGHTON AND THOMAS R. ROUGHTON

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that jury could have found a fiduciary relationship between the Diocese and parishioner Martinelli based on priest’s ties to plaintiff and Diocese’s “knowledge and sponsorship” of that relationship
• explaining that the tolling statute operates “only” for those “who are not aware of the facts that have been concealed.”
• finding that tolling “because of the defendant’s fraudulent concealment,” for example, “obviously operates for the benefit of those—and we think only those—who are not aware of the facts that have been concealed”
• concluding in the context of a sexual assault claim that a jury could find the Diocese liable for breaches of a fiduciary duty owed to a parishioner without impermissibly inquiring into religious issues
• acknowledging forceful argument that fiduciary relationship does not arise merely from relationship between Dioceses and its parishioners
• noting that a fiduciary has the burden of proof to explain a transaction which benefits himself at the expense of his beneficiaries because a \suspicion naturally arises that the fiduciary has gained by taking advantage of its special relationship\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).