I’ve written about statutes of limitations a number of times previously and specifically about this case. Here’s a new example of the problem: Lawyer Seeks to Reinstate Suit Over Alleged Abuse Cover-Up at Yeshiva High – NYTimes.com.
What’s especially notable about this article is that it offers a vivid picture of how judges hear appeals, and how they express their legal opinions/arguments from the bench.
A lawyer for dozens of men who say they were sexually abused as high school students by rabbis at Yeshiva University High School for Boys in Manhattan asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to reinstate a lawsuit claiming that the school had covered up the misconduct for decades.
Contending that a federal judge who had earlier dismissed the case misconstrued the statute of limitations, the lawyer, Kevin T. Mulhearn, argued that the school, in Washington Heights, should be held accountable for hundreds of acts of abuse from the 1970s through the early 1990s because its complicity had only recently come to light. The case hinges, in part, on whether it was the obligation of the victims to pursue hints of a cover-up before school administrators acknowledged that they had known of the crimes.
UPDATE 9/6/2014. As I figured from the previous reports about this case, Appeals Court Agrees Sex Abuse Victims Waited Too Long to Sue Yeshiva University – NYTimes.com.