Opinion

Petersen v. Bruen

  • 106 Nev. 271
  • 792 P.2d 18
  • 1990 Nev. LEXIS 47
Court
Nevada Supreme Court
Filed
May 10, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Springer
On the bench
Rose, Springer, Steffen, Young, Mowbray
Cited by
113 cases

explaining that "Mhe general rule concerning statutes of limitation is that a cause of action accrues when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief could be sought," but that the discovery rule is an exception to this general rule for accrual and that when applied, it tolls the statute of limitations period "until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a cause of action"

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that "Mhe general rule concerning statutes of limitation is that a cause of action accrues when the wrong occurs and a party sustains injuries for which relief could be sought," but that the discovery rule is an exception to this general rule for accrual and that when applied, it tolls the statute of limitations period "until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a cause of action"
  • ruling the statutory period of limitations is tolled “until the injured party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts supporting a cause of action”
  • finding that the statute of limitations for 10 conversion is discovery based
  • "We recognize that injustice may result from our ruling in instances where (childhood sexual abuse) has occurred but cannot be demonstrated by corroborative evidence that is clear and convincing. We are persuaded, however, that the potential for fraudulent claims is sufficiently great to warrant such a ruling."

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Springer, J.,

concurring and dissenting:

I agree with the majority opinion that a “discovery” rule in these kinds of cases is unrealistic. I disagree, however, with the majority’s attempt to annul the statute of limitations in civil cases arising out of child sex abuse cases. I dissent from the majority opinion in this regard and, therefore, from the decision to reverse.

The legislature may choose to eliminate the statute of limitations with respect to child abuse cases. I do not think that the court should be making these kinds of major policy decisions. I find the reasoning in support of doing away with the statute of limitations to be hard to follow and a bit contrived.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.