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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1986–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.green2 sentences2019Indeed, our Supreme Court has stressed that “[t]he salient point giving rise to the equitable application of the exception of the discovery rule is the inability, despite the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff, to know of the injury,” Pocono International Raceway, Inc., v. Pocono Produce Inc., 468 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. 1983), and “[t]he rationale behind the discovery rule is that it is unjust to deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action before the plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing that a claim exists.” Gust, 898 P.2d at 967 . 2014The “discovery rule” provides that “where the existence of [an] injury is not known to the complaining party and such knowledge cannot reasonably be ascertained within the prescribed statutory period, the limitations period does not begin to run until the discovery of the injury is reasonably possible.” Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 879 A.2d 270, 276 (2005); see also, Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. 1983) (“The salient point giving rise to the equitable application of the exception of the discovery rule is the inability, | 4 | 7 |
Haggart v. Chogreen1 sentence2014In such cases, the statute does not begin to run until the injured party “possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he is entitled to redress.” Baselice, 879 A.2d at 276 (quoting, Haggart v. Cho, 703 A.2d 522, 526 (Pa. Super. 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc.green2 sentences2014In such cases, the statute does not begin to run until the injured party “possesses sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he is entitled to redress.” Baselice, 879 A.2d at 276 (quoting, Haggart v. Cho, 703 A.2d 522, 526 (Pa. Super. 1997)). 2014The “discovery rule” provides that “where the existence of [an] injury is not known to the complaining party and such knowledge cannot reasonably be ascertained within the prescribed statutory period, the limitations period does not begin to run until the discovery of the injury is reasonably possible.” Baselice v. Franciscan Friars Assumption BVM Province, Inc., 879 A.2d 270, 276 (2005); see also, Pocono Int’l Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 468 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. 1983) (“The salient point giving rise to the equitable application of the exception of the discovery rule is the inability, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gust, Rosenfeld & Henderson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2019In my view, the underlying reasons supporting the discovery rule are not diminished in any way based upon the status of a suit being labeled a contract claim, for the discovery rule “relates more to the circumstances under which a legal duty is breached and less to the nature of the cause of action.” Id. 2019Indeed, our Supreme Court has stressed that “[t]he salient point giving rise to the equitable application of the exception of the discovery rule is the inability, despite the exercise of diligence by the plaintiff, to know of the injury,” Pocono International Raceway, Inc., v. Pocono Produce Inc., 468 A.2d 468, 471 (Pa. 1983), and “[t]he rationale behind the discovery rule is that it is unjust to deprive a plaintiff of a cause of action before the plaintiff has a reasonable basis for believing that a claim exists.” Gust, 898 P.2d at 967 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.