Legal Opinion

Baumgart v. Keene Building Products Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 21, 1995PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

The Court being evenly divided, the Order of the Superior Court is affirmed.

ZAPPALA, J., files an Opinion in Support of Affirmance in which FLAHERTY and CASTILLE, JJ., join. MONTEMURO * , J., files an Opinion in Support of Reversal in which NIX, C.J., and CAPPY, J., join.

OPINION IN SUPPORT OF AFFIRMANCE

ZAPPALA, Justice.

The statute of limitations is not tolled by the discovery rule since Appellant possessed the salient facts and was able, in the exercise of due diligence, to determine the existence of the cause of action more than two years before the survival action was commenced.

The…

3Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Ayers v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Cathcart v. Keene Industrial InsulationSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by44 opinions

  1. Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Childs v. HausseckerTexas Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Cochran v. GAF Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  4. White v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Brin v. S.E.W. InvestorsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API