tree.gif (2094 bytes) 

Article: Remedies for Victims of Sexual Abuse

Article: Connecticut version of Remedies article

Article: Arizona - "Florez Revisited: Arizona's New Approach to Extending Statutes of Limitation in Childhood Sexual Abuse Cases"

Legal Resources for Victims of Sexual Abuse

Susan K. Smith
David M. Moore

Attorneys at Law

Mediation, Collaboration
Victims' Remedies
Injury Cases

Smith & Moore, LLC
www.SmithMooreLLC.com
smith-lawfirm.com

24 East Main Street
(Route 44)
Old Avon Village North
Avon, CT 06001
Direct dial:

Atty. Smith:  (860) 678-1860
Atty. Moore: (860) 674-0122

Fax: (860) 677-5229
Directions & Map

Atty. Smith's Hartford
Conference Space
21 Oak Street
Suite 208
Hartford, CT 06106
Directions & Map

Martindale-Hubbell
Peer Review Rated
For Ethical Standards and Legal Ability

scale inki.gif (1541 bytes)

The Fine Print: This web site provides general information only and cannot be relied upon as legal advice. Laws change  and differ from State to State. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. You should consult an attorney about your particular situation.

COPYRIGHT © 1998-09 Susan K. Smith All Rights Reserved.

 

 


Civil Statute of Limitations
for Child Sexual Abuse

Please help us to keep these pages up to date.
Send us legal developments, bad links, new statutes, etc.

District of Columbia

The D.C. statute of limitations for personal injury actions provides that an action must be brought within three years "from the time the right to maintain the action accrues." D.C. Code § 12-301 (1995). If the victim is a minor when the injury occurs, he or she may bring the action within three years of his/her eighteenth birthday. D.C. Code § 12-302 (a)(1) (1995).

In Cevenini v. Archbishop of Washington, 707 A.2d 768 (D. C. 1998), the Court held that the statute of limitations expires 3 years from the injury or when the victims achieved their majority (age 18). The Court refused to enlarge the scope of the discovery rule and refused to reach the issue of whether "discovery" required an appreciation of the connection between the injury and the abuse. The court stated that under both the general rule . . . and the discovery rule exception, the statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff either has actual knowledge of a cause of action or is charged with knowledge of that cause of action. Diamond v. Davis, supra, 680 A.2d at 372; see also Burns v. Bell, 409 A.2d 614, 615 (D.C. 1979) (where the fact of injury is readily discernible, the SOL begins to run when the injury occurs"). In Farris v. Compton, 652 A.2d 49 (D.C. App. 1994) the court applied the discovery rule to extend the SOL in a repressed memory case. The Cevenini court distinguished Farris by reasoning that the repression of memory was total in Farris but that the victims in Cevenini had some memory of the abuse.

The victims in the Cevenini case were represented by Attorney Gregory L. Murphy of Washington, D.C.


                      
Resource:The D.C. Rape Crisis Center

Updated April 13, 2002. Copyright Susan K. Smith 1996-2002