Doe v. Maskell
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Maryland high court held that repressed memories are scientifically indistinguishable from ordinary forgetting and do not trigger the discovery rule, barring civil claims based on allegedly recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

1996 | State Juristiction

Doe v. Maskell

Keywords Maryland high court; repressed memories; scientifically indistinguishable; ordinary forgetting; discovery rule; barring civil claims; recovered memories; childhood sexual abuse; civil claims; sexual abuse
Open Case as PDF

Summary

The highest court in Maryland determined that repressed memories cannot be scientifically differentiated from typical forgetting. Therefore, these memories do not activate the discovery rule, which prevents civil lawsuits related to alleged recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

Maryland's highest court has ruled that repressed memories cannot be scientifically differentiated from typical forgetting. The court determined that these memories do not activate the "discovery rule," which would otherwise allow civil lawsuits based on supposedly recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse to proceed. As a result, such claims are prevented from moving forward.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

Maryland's highest court has ruled that repressed memories cannot be distinguished from regular forgetting through scientific methods. Therefore, these memories do not activate the discovery rule. This decision prevents civil lawsuits that are based on memories of childhood sexual abuse that were reportedly recovered later in life.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

Maryland's highest court decided that forgotten memories are like regular forgetting. They are not a special type of memory. The court said that these memories do not restart the time limit for filing a lawsuit. This means people cannot sue based on memories of childhood sexual abuse that they say they remembered later.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Doe v. Maskell, 679 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Md. 1996)

Highlights