Legal Opinion

Holmes v. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 16, 2004No. 03-1171UnpublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMBRO, Circuit Judge.

Clarence Holmes appeals the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of Willard Smith, Jr., a/k/a Will Smith. Holmes sued Smith for breach of contract and quantum meruit based on an alleged recording contract between them. The District Court held that Holmes’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Holmes on appeal argues that his quantum meruit claim is not time barred because the statute of limitations should be tolled. For the reasons that follow, we disagree and affirm the decision of the District Court.

I

Sometime before 1986, Smith and Jeffrey…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. The Medical Protective Company v. William WatkinsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  2. Ciccarelli v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
  3. Kenis v. Perini Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  4. Cole v. LawrenceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Huntingdon Finance Corp. v. Newtown Artesian Water Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Asset Acquisition Group LLC v. DeJesus, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County2010

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

Powered by the Exa API