White v. Mercury Marine, 96-2931 (1997)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Number: 96-2931
Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 01, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I concur in the result because application of the discovery rule makes sense in this case involving a manufacturer whose only acts which might give rise to liability occurred years ago in the manufacture and sale of the motor . For example, there is no claim that defendant was guilty of any continuing violation of any regulatory noise standard. Thus, I need not address the choice between the discovery rule and the modified continuing tort theory in
Summary: ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I concur in the result because application of the discovery rule makes sense in this case involving a manufacturer whose only acts which might give rise to liability occurred years ago in the manufacture and sale of the motor . For example, there is no claim that defendant was guilty of any continuing violation of any regulatory noise standard. Thus, I need not address the choice between the discovery rule and the modified continuing tort theory in o..
More
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I concur in the result because application of the discovery rule makes sense in this
case involving a manufacturer whose only acts which might give rise to liability occurred
years ago in the manufacture and sale of the motor . For example, there is no claim that
defendant was guilty of any continuing violation of any regulatory noise standard. Thus,
I need not address the choice between the discovery rule and the modified continuing tort
theory in other contexts where the active and continuing nature of the tort may make it
inequitable to deny recovery for that tortuous action occurring within the statute of
limitations period. See Page v United States, 729 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Source: CourtListener
