摘要：Alaska’s long-awaited legal approach to repressed memory syndrome and the discovery rule was announced in 2014 in the case of Maness v. Gordon. The Alaska Supreme Court held that discovery rule could not be invoked to toll the statute of limitations in repressed memory syndrome cases absent corroborating expert testimony. The court’s brief opinion in Maness provided little discussion on the scientific controversy surrounding repressed memory syndrome, created a relatively unique rule, and ultimately did not decide whether expert testimony would save a repressed memory syndrome claim. This Note aims to provide a deeper understanding of the controversy surrounding repressed memory syndrome in the scientific community and to compare and contrast Alaska’s new rule with the approaches of other states. Finally, this Note presents some alternative approaches the Alaska Legislature could consider and raises future issues that Maness did not address.
