green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
44.8 score
“in general, an action based on contract accrues at the time of breach. where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 35 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rubin, S. v. Kanya, S.
there can be no more clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of a debt than payment
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
C.J. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. EQM GATHERING OPCO, LLC
in general, an action based on contract accrues at the time of breach. where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Thornton
in order for a partial payment to toll the statute of limitations, the payment must constitute a constructive acknowledgment of the debt from which a promise to pay the balance may be inferred
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WILLIAMS v. ELLIOTT
Pa. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted), and quantum meruit claims accrue on “the date on which the relationship between the parties is terminated,” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raymond Handling Concepts Corp v. Invata LLC
“Where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Owens v. PA Minority Business Development Authority of the
See 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5525(a); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
TRUST v. WENG
Reinsurance Co., 130 F. App’x 607, 609 (3d Cir. 2005), quoting Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
BARKER v. MAURUS
Co. v. Rosenthal, 484 F.3d 251 , 253 n.3 (3d Cir. 2007) (breach of contract); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nader Aldossari v. Joseph Ripp
Pa. 2015), and on the quantum meruit claim on “the date on which the relationship between the parties [was] terminated[,]” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KEM Resources, LP v. Ryvamat, Inc.
Ryvamat is correct that common law unjust enrichment actions are subject to the four-year statute of limitations for contracts implied in law. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(4); Sevast v. Kakouras, 915 A.2d 1147, 1153 (Pa. 2007); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hawley v. @home Builders, LLC
According to statute, there is a four-year statute of limitations for such causes of action.”) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(4) and Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Abughazaleh, O. v. Asher, R.
Plaintiff quoted from Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 990 (Pa.Super. 1997) which holds that in order for a partial payment to toll the statute of limitations, the payment must constitute a constructive acknowledgement of the debt from which a promise to pay the balance may be inferred.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Juniata Valley Bank v. Coffee Run Equity Assoc.
“This [Court] has recognized that there can be no more clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of a debt than payment.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 990 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citation omitted). -3- J-A20024-17 The mortgage at issue in this action was not under seal.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phillips, C. v. Stone, G.
“This court has recognized that there can be no more clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of a debt than payment.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 990 (Pa. Super. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brown, T.
See Hainesworth, 82 A.3d at 447 ; Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lisser, M. v. Polis, R.
"Where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated." Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super. 1997) (citing Thorpe v. Schoebrun, 195 A.2d 870, 872 (Pa.Super. 1963).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frost, M. v. Zeff, G.
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(4); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. [ ] 1997) (stating plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment, an action based on a contract implied at law, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shrawder, R.
(2×)
See Hainesworth, 82 A.3d at 447 ; Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997), appeal denied, 725 A.2d 1217 (Pa.1998). “[T]he statute of limitations begins to run on a claim from the time the cause of action accrues.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller, W. v. Miller, M.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5525(a)(4); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997) (stating plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, an action based on a contract implied at law, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ralph Leporace v. New York Life and Annuity
Where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Jannetta (In re Irwin)
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997) (citing Thorpe, 195 A.2d at 872 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Ford Motor Co.
(2×)
Defendant cites Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997), for the proposition that the four-year period begins to run on the date the relationship between the parties is terminated.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker v. Winner International Inc.
“Where the contract is a continuing one, the statute of limitations runs from the time when the breach occurs or when the contract is in some way terminated.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citing Thorpe v. Schoenbrun, 202 Pa. Super. 375, 378, 195 A.2d 870, 872 (1963)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sevast v. Kakouras
(2×)
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5525(a)(4); [8] Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (stating plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, an action based on a contract implied at law, is subject to a four-year statute of limitations).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colonial Assurance v. Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co.
Under Pennsylvania law, an unjust enrichment claim has a four-year statute of limitations, which “begin[s] to accrue as of the date on which the relationship between the parties is terminated.” Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Currie v. Phillips
The court in its determination of whether there is a dispute upon the facts “must confine its consideration to the pleadings and relevant documents.” AIU Insurance Co. v. Barxha, 2004 WL 2439234 , 1 (Pa.Com.Pl.) citing Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 988 (Pa. Super. 1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Colonial Assurance Co. v. Mercantile & General Reinsurance Co.
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pagnotti v. Lehigh Valley Coal Sale Co. (In Re Pagnotti)
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997) citing, Packer Society Hill Travel Agency, Inc. v. Presbyterian University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 430 Pa.Super. 625, 631 , 635 A.2d 649, 652 (1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Resource Properties XLIV Inc. v. Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997); Bednar v. Marino, 435 Pa. Super. 417, 427 , 646 A.2d 573, 578 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rotell v. Erie Insurance Group
It may be entered when there are no disputed issues of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Mellon Bank, 768 A.2d at 868 (quoting Citicorp North America Inc. v. Thornton, 707 A.2d 536, 538 (Pa. Super. 1998)); see also, Kelaco v. Davis & McKean General Partnership, 743 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 1999); Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 988 (Pa. Super. 1997); Vetter v. Fun Footwear Co., 447 Pa. Super. 84, 87 , 668 A.2d 529, 530-31 (1995) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelaco v. Davis & McKean General Partnership
Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 988 (Pa.Super.1997) (quoting Vetter v. Fun Footwear Co., 447 Pa.Super. 84 , 668 A.2d 529, 530-31 (1995) (en banc)). ¶ 9 In this action, Appellant seeks a declaration that Exhibit A is in violation of Exhibits B, C, and D.
examined
Cited "see"
Asset Acquisition Group LLC v. DeJesus
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Cole, 701 A.2d at 990 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Holmes v. Smith
See Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (“[Qjuantum meruit actions begin to accrue, as of the date on which the relationship between the parties is terminated.”) (citing Kenis v. Perini Carp., 452 Pa.Super. 634 , 682 A.2d 845, 849 (1996) (holding that attorney’s quantum meruit cause of action against his former client accrued as of the date of the attorney’s termination of representation)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crouse v. Cyclops Industries
See Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super.1997)(noting that a contract implied in law is subject to a four-year statute of limitations); Ragnar Benson Inc. v. Bethel Mart Assoc., 308 Pa.Super. 405 , 454 A.2d 599 (1982)(same).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boyko, E. v. Boyko, C.
(2×)
See also Cole v. Lawrence, 701 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1997)(plaintiffs claim for unjust enrichment based on a contract implied by law is subject to a four-year statute of 13 FILED 1/12/2023 4:01 PM,Clerk of Judicial Records, Civil Division, Lehigh County, PA 2020-C-0881 /s/JW FILED 12/20/2022 2:54 PM, Clerk of Judicial Records, Civil Division, Lehigh County, PA 2020-C-0881 /s/JW limitations), "The statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the right to institute and maintain suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake, or misunderstanding do not toll thc running of the statute of limitatio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Michael J. EAGEN
No. 874 Disciplinary Docket No. 2.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Oct 27, 1997.
701 A.2d 987
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM:AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated September 9, 1997, and the Order entered by this Court on May 3, 1995, the Petition for Reinstatement is granted.
Pursuant to Rule 218(e), Pa.R.D.E., petitioner is directed to pay the expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement.