Crouse v. Cyclops Industries
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIGRO, Justice.
The issue presently before this Court is whether the Superi- or Court erred in finding that appellants’ complaint was untimely filed. At the conclusion of a three-day trial, the jury returned a verdict for appellants on their claim for promissory estoppel which the Superior Court reversed as barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons stated below we find that the statute of limitations on an action sounding in promissory estoppel is four years and that, under the facts of this case, the question of when the appellants knew or should have known of a breach by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Cochran v. GAF Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Burnside v. Abbott LaboratoriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Hayward v. Medical CenterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
- Deemer v. Weaver, Exrx.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by252 opinions
- Alan Schmidt v. John SkolasCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2014
- Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Jeffrey J. Sikirica, Esq., as Trustee of Pittsburgh Beauty Academy, Inc. v. Nationwide Insurance Company Jeffrey J. SikiricaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Sullivan v. Chartwell Investment Partners, LPSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Wilson v. El-DaiefSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
247 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.