Brief on Statute of Limitations from Notice not Date of Incident

Do you have a fairly recent brief on the Statute of Limitations beginning to run from notice of the tort not the date that it occurred.

Answer: No brief and hard to say without knowing your facts. The discovery rule applies to some cases but not to others. See:

Sloan v. Canadian Valley Animal Clinic, 1085 OK CIV APP, 39, 719 P.2d 474: Discovery rule applied where P. contracted brucellosis, while working as a volunteer at D. vet clinic., S.L. ran from time she knew she had disease, not from time she became ill.

Weaver v. Casey, 1991 OK 79, 816 P.2d 1126: SOL does not begin to run until owner of stolen property knows or should know its whereabouts.

Digital Design Group, Inc. v. Information Builders, Inc., 2001 OK 21, 24 P.3d 834: Discovery rule applies to libel action. SOL begins to run only when Plaintiff knew or should have known of libel.

Lovelace v. Keohane, 1992 OK 24, 831 P.2d 624, 11 ALR5th 1061: Plaintiff’s multiple personality disorder was not legal disability tolling SOL; discovery rule did not toll SOL;

The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 1992 OK ,140. 840 P.2d 619: SOL begins to run on a construction contract from date of completion of the project, even as to a sub-contractor, whose contract was finished earlier. Rejects discovery rule as applied to a construction contract.

Weathers v. Fulgenzi, 1994 OK 119, 884 P.2d 538: Discovery rule applies to adult sex abuse case against psychologist, but statute begins to run when patient realizes wrong and injury.

Riesigner’s Jewelers, Inc. v. Roberson, 1978 OK CIV APP 33, 582 P.2d 409 : “S. of L. as to personal property, though stolen, when held in good faith for value, openly and notoriously” is 2 years, under 12 O.S.A. §95, third, quoting syll. in Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Bivins-Corhn Co., 1941 OK 382, 119 P.2d 58; Overrules Burroughs.