Sanders v. Gagnon

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that merely bringing suit after the scheme has been laid bare does not satisfy the due diligence requirement when there have been prior warnings that something was amiss
• affirming district court’s grant of motion to dismiss based on failure to comply with the statute of limitations where underlying facts were not in question
• holding “that when a prospectus sufficiently discloses the risks inherent in an investment, the investor is on inquiry notice of his claims and the limitations period begins to run from the date of sale on claims of fraud in that - 21 - prospectus”
• court may determine as matter of law plaintiff’s failure to exercise due diligence in uncovering claim
• “Commencement of a limitations period need not . . . await the dawn of complete awareness.”
• “Inquiry notice is triggered by evidence of the possibility of fraud, not by complete exposure of the alleged scam.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).