Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 55
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5554 (2026)

 Tolling of statute.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 5554.  Tolling of statute.

Except as provided by section 5553(e) (relating to disposition of proceedings within two years), the period of limitation does not run during any time when:

(1)  the accused is continuously absent from this Commonwealth or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within this Commonwealth;

(2)  a prosecution against the accused for the same conduct is pending in this Commonwealth; or

(3)  a child is under 18 years of age, where the crime involves injuries to the person of the child caused by the wrongful act, or neglect, or unlawful violence, or negligence of the child's parents or by a person responsible for the child's welfare, or any individual residing in the same home as the child, or a paramour of the child's parent.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; July 10, 1985, P.L.193, No.49, eff. 60 days)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Gerstner, 656 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Gerstner, 656 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1995). · cites it 16× “However, the Commonwealth contended that because the victim was under the age of 18, [4] and appellant was the paramour of the victim's parent and/or the person responsible for the victim's welfare when he watched her, the tolling provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554 would apply.…”
Commonwealth v. Spanier, 192 A.3d 141 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 4× “Since Stockard , as I will discuss infra , our Courts have used the concept of "tolling" the statute in reference to both the specific section regarding tolling cited in Stockard -now enshrined at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554 -as well as to other codified exceptions to the statute of…”
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “13(H) (Anderson 2003); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5554(2) (2002); Wis. Stat.”
Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263 (3rd Cir. 2007). “42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5554 provides that the statute of limitations may be extended in certain circumstances, including “when the accused is continuously absent from the Commonwealth.”
Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5554 (Purdon Supp.”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 969 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5554(1). 9 . The Commonwealth’s assessment of whether the statute of limitations was tolled is not currently before the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Purcell, 589 A.2d 217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “(3) a child is under 18 years of age, where the crime involves injuries to the person of the child caused by the wrongful act, or neglect, or unlawful violence, or negligence of the child's parents or by a person responsible for the child's welfare, or any individual residing…”
Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 595 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 3× “In general, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced within two years after it is committed.”
Commonwealth v. Lightman, 489 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 2× “§ 108(f)(1) has been repealed and replaced by 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554 (1976). The language of section 5554 is identical to its predecessor, therefore the result we reach today is valid under either legislation.”
Commonwealth v. Gerstner, 630 A.2d 1277 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). · cites it 5× “The Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred in finding that the statute of limitations was not tolled pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554, because the record established that Gerstner was a person responsible for the child’s welfare.”
Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109 (Pa. 2006). “We recognize that, in its appeal to the Superior Court, the Commonwealth also argued that Section 5552(b)’s period of limitations was tolled under Section 5554 of the Judicial Code, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554(1) (prescribing tolling in instances in which "the accused is continually…”
Smith v. Holtz, 856 F. Supp. 227 (M.D. Penn. 1994). “42 Pa. Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5554. Sandwich, supra, 684 F.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5554(1) — 7 cases
Commonwealth v. Groff, 548 A.2d 1237 (Pa. 1988). “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5554 (Purdon Supp.”
Commonwealth v. Laskaris, 595 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “In general, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced within two years after it is committed.”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 969 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). “42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5554(1). 9 . The Commonwealth’s assessment of whether the statute of limitations was tolled is not currently before the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109 (Pa. 2006). “We recognize that, in its appeal to the Superior Court, the Commonwealth also argued that Section 5552(b)’s period of limitations was tolled under Section 5554 of the Judicial Code, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554(1) (prescribing tolling in instances in which "the accused is continually…”
Com. v. Conte, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5554(2) — 1 case
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “13(H) (Anderson 2003); 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5554(2) (2002); Wis. Stat.”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5554(3) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Gerstner, 656 A.2d 108 (Pa. 1995). “However, the Commonwealth contended that because the victim was under the age of 18, [4] and appellant was the paramour of the victim's parent and/or the person responsible for the victim's welfare when he watched her, the tolling provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554 would apply.…”
Commonwealth v. Spanier, 192 A.3d 141 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Since Stockard , as I will discuss infra , our Courts have used the concept of "tolling" the statute in reference to both the specific section regarding tolling cited in Stockard -now enshrined at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5554 -as well as to other codified exceptions to the statute of…”
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 969 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). “42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5554(1). 9 . The Commonwealth’s assessment of whether the statute of limitations was tolled is not currently before the Court.”
Commonwealth v. Purcell, 589 A.2d 217 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “(3) a child is under 18 years of age, where the crime involves injuries to the person of the child caused by the wrongful act, or neglect, or unlawful violence, or negligence of the child's parents or by a person responsible for the child's welfare, or any individual residing…”
Commonwealth v. Perry, 588 A.2d 917 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.