The Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday came down against two adult brothers who claimed they had been sexually abused as boys by a Catholic priest 30 years ago, ruling that the statute of limitations has run out.

Ralph Louis Colosimo and Charles Matthew Colosimo in 2003 filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Diocese of Salt Lake, Judge Memorial High School and other parties. They sought damages for what they said they had suffered after being sexually abused in the 1970s by a now-defrocked priest, James Rapp, who taught at the high school and also was a trusted family friend.

Rapp currently is in prison serving a 40-year sentence after pleading no contest to sexually violating a boy in Oklahoma.

The high court ruling ends the Colosimos' legal battle.

Their lawsuit was dismissed by 3rd District Judge Paul Maughan, but the Colosimos pursued an appeal. The Utah Supreme Court in 2005 agreed to review a narrow issue of their case: "Whether plaintiffs' awareness of sexual abuse entailed a reasonable knowledge of, or a duty to inquire about, the facts necessary to support claims that the defendants knew of the abuse and failed to adequately supervise the perpetrator or to prevent the abuse."

The Colosimos had argued the institutions that employed and supervised Rapp knew he had sexually abused boys before, but deliberately concealed it to protect their own interests.

Under Utah law, an individual has four years after his or her 18th birthday to bring a legal claim.

The Colosimos maintained that, in their case, the statue of limitations was "tolled," or suspended, because they had a right to conduct discovery to get evidence regarding what the various institutions knew about Rapp.

Ralph Colosimo had said he had repressed memories of the abuse that surfaced in therapy. Charles Colosimo said he never forgot it, but did not make a connection between the abuse and his injuries until years later in therapy.

However, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that the discovery rule did not toll the statute of limitations.

"In this case, the Colosimos knew that they had been abused and that Rapp was the abuser. They also knew or were constructively on notice of the relationships between Rapp and the institutional defendants and of the duties owed to them by those institutional defendants," the ruling stated.

The high court also said if it followed the arguments put forth by the Colosimos, claims against someone like Rapp would be subject to the statute of limitations, but other "remote" entities would remain liable indefinitely. "We fail to see the logic in such a scheme," the ruling said.