Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02488/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02488-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I .L D D ' 

Uniood States Coμrt~f Appc& .. .., TENTH CIRCUIT Tent.ti C1rcut+: 

MARIAN E . LOVELACE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

vs. 

FATHER DANIEL C. KEOHANE, 

Individually and as Agent and 

Employee of The Roman Catholic 

Archdiocese of Oklahoma City 

and The Roman Catholic Diocese 

of Tulsa, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 

ARCHDIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA CITY, 

and THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE 

OF TULSA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 2 6 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2488 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

(D.C. No . 88-C-436-C) 

Before BALDOCK and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges and KANE, District 

Judge.* 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT** 

Plaintiff-appellant, Marian Lovelace, filed this Oklahoma 

diversity action on May 17, 1988, under 28 u.s.c. S 1332 seeking 

* Honorable John L. Kane, Jr. , Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

** This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2488 Document: 010110226161 Date Filed: 02/26/1992 Page: 1 
damages for personal injury arising out of the alleged clergical 

negligence of defendant-appellant, Father Daniel Keohane, and his 

principals, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and 

the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa. Pursuant to 20 Okla. Stat. 

SS 1602-05, we certified the following question to the Oklahoma 

Supreme Court: 

Whether a "legal disability" or "discovery rule" 

tolls the Oklahoma two-year statute of limitations 

applicable to personal injury actions, in a suit based 

on a defendant's alleged sexual molestations of the 

plaintiff during the years 1967 through 1970, but not 

commenced until May 17, 1988, because, due to a multiple 

personality disorder, plaintiff's dominant "host" 

personality had no knowledge of the molestations until 

plaintiff underwent psychotherapy treatment on May 18, 

1987? 

The supreme court answered the certified question in the negative; 

therefore, plaintiff's complaint is time-barred. See Lovelace v. 

Keohane, No. 74,848, slip op. at 14, 1992 WL 21444 (Okla. Feb. 11, 

1992). Accordingly, we affirm the federal district court's 

dismissal of Lovelace's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2488 Document: 010110226161 Date Filed: 02/26/1992 Page: 2