Legal Opinion

E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 7, 1993No. 1098PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

This appeal requires us to decide whether, under the circumstances of this sexual assault and battery case, the discovery rule should be applied to toll the running of the applicable statute of limitations.

The appeal is taken from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Franciscan Fathers of Green Bay, on the ground that the action was instituted after the expiration of the statute of limitations and that the discovery rale should not be applied to toll the running of the statute of limitations. We find no error in this determination and…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Smith v. Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  4. Ayers v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  5. Schaffer v. LarzelereSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. S.V. v. R.V.Texas Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Dalrymple v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Kingston Coal Co. v. Felton Mining Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Farris v. ComptonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. Doe v. Archdiocese of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1997

46 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