# Diamond v. Davis

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · February 20, 1996 · 680 A.2d 364

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706794

## Case

- **Full name:** Patrick H. DIAMOND, Appellant, v. Carle E. DAVIS, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** February 20, 1996
- **Citations:** 680 A.2d 364; 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 310; 1996 WL 498158
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Ferren, Ruiz, Kern
- **Cited by:** 126 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706794

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under the discovery rule, cause of action accrues “when the plaintiff has either actual notice of her cause of action or is deemed to be on inquiry notice because if she had met her duty to act reasonably under the circumstances in investigating matters affecting …
- explaining that “a cause of action accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations when the plaintiff has either actual notice of her cause of action or is deemed to be on inquiry notice” and that “inquiry notice is that notice which a plaintiff would have possessed after d…
- stating in the context of a fraud claim that “[w]e daily entrust to judge and jury the task of assessing the bounds of reasonable conduct in every manner of human endeav- or.”
- explaining that if the area of knowledge “is one beyond the ken of the average juror (or judge), then the parties must produce expert evidence to assist them in understanding”
- stating that “[i]n every case, the plaintiff has a duty to investigate matters affecting her affairs with reasonable diligence under all of the circumstances”

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Part II of Judge RUIZ’s opinion, the concurring opinion of Judge KERN, and Part I of the opinion of Judge FERREN concurring in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706794. Public record. Not legal advice.