Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1982–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hayward v. Medical Centergreen2 sentences2016“The purpose of the discovery rule has been to exclude from the running of the statute of limitations that period of time during which a party who has not suffered an immediately ascertainable injury is reasonably unaware he has been injured, so that he has essentially the same rights as those who have suffered such an injury.” Fine, 870 A.2d at 858 , citing Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320 , 608 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1992). [W]hen a court is presented with the assertion of the discovery rule[’]s application, it must address the ability of the damaged party, exercising reason 2016“The purpose of the discovery rule has been to exclude from the running of the statute of limitations that period of time during which a party who has not suffered an immediately ascertainable injury is reasonably unaware he has been injured, so that he has essentially the same rights as those who have suffered such an injury.” Fine, 870 A.2d at 858 , citing Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320 , 608 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1992). [W]hen a court is presented with the assertion of the discovery rule[’]s application, it must address the ability of the damaged party, exercising reason | 6 | 7 |
Fine v. Checciogreen2 sentences2016“The purpose of the discovery rule has been to exclude from the running of the statute of limitations that period of time during which a party who has not suffered an immediately ascertainable injury is reasonably unaware he has been injured, so that he has essentially the same rights as those who have suffered such an injury.” Fine, 870 A.2d at 858 , citing Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320 , 608 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1992). [W]hen a court is presented with the assertion of the discovery rule[’]s application, it must address the ability of the damaged party, exercising reason 2012“The purpose of the discovery rule has been to exclude from the running of the statute of limitations that period of time during which a party who has not suffered an immediately ascertainable injury is reasonably unaware he has been injured, so that he has essentially the same rights as those who have suffered such an injury.” Id. at 266-267 , citing Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320 , 530 Pa. 320, 325 , 608 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1992). | 2 | 7 |
Dalrymple v. Browngreen2 sentences2004Dalrymple [v. Brown, 549 Pa. 217 , 701 A.2d 164, 167 (1997)]. 2004Dalrymple [v. Brown, 549 Pa. 217 , 701 A.2d 164, 167 (1997)]. | 1 | 2 |
Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausanggreen1 sentence2014Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang, 839 A.2d 437, 441 (Pa. Super. 2002), cited by Appellants is distinguishable. | 1 | 1 |
Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.green2 sentences2012“Where, however, reasonable minds would not differ in finding that a party knew or should have known on the exercise of reasonable diligence of his injury and its cause, the court determines that the discovery rule does not apply as a matter of law.” Id. at 268, citing Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 85 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983). 2012“Where, however, reasonable minds would not differ in finding that a party knew or should have known on the exercise of reasonable diligence of his injury and its cause, the court determines that the discovery rule does not apply as a matter of law.” Id. at 268, citing Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 85 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc.green2 sentences1982See Anthony v. Koppers, supra, 284 Pa. Superior Ct. at 86-87 , 425 A.2d at 431 . 1982See Anthony v. Koppers, supra, 284 Pa. Superior Ct. at 86-87 , 425 A.2d at 431 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan ex rel. Mumma v. Petroleum Products Equipment Co.
green
1 sentence2025Id. at 828 n.9 (internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lewey v. H. C. Fricke Coke Co.
green
1 sentence2013“The purpose of the discovery rule has been to exclude from the running of the statute of limitations that period of time during which a party who has not suffered an immediately ascertainable injury is reasonably unaware he has been injured, so that he has essentially the same rights as those who have suffered such an injury.” Id. (citing Hayward v. Medical Center of Beaver County, 530 Pa. 320 , 608 A.2d 1040, 1043 (1992)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Murphy v. Diogenes A. Saavedra, M.D., P.C.
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 435 n. 2, 746 A.2d at 99 n. 2. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.