COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bethlehem Steel
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
This appeal is dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted to consider the continued validity of the rule that the statute of limitations does not run against the Commonwealth in light of Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). But that issue should not be decided in this case because the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to allow an amendment to the answer in order to raise the statute of limitations in new matter does not constitute an abuse of discretion even if we were to hold the statute of limitations applies to the Commonwealth.
The…
3Cases cited1 opinion
- Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
4Cited by16 opinions
- Tanner v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Borough of Mifflinburg v. HeimSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Carpitella v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. J. W. Bishop & Co.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Kenney v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.