Legal Opinion

Fox v. Byrne

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 29, 1987No. Nos. 01966, 02026PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CIRILLO, President Judge:

Must a plaintiff file a responsive pleading to new matter in a defendant’s answer which raises the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense, when the plaintiff’s complaint states facts indicating that the statute should be extended via application of the discovery rule?

*72The Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County granted defendant’s, Dr. Robert Byrne and Norristown Surgical Associates, motion for judgment on the pleadings since the plaintiffs, James and Angela Fox, failed to respond to such new matter. Because we find that the answer to the question posed…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ayers v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Bartanus v. LisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Provident National Bank v. RooklinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Stein v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Prince v. Trustees of University of PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Prevish v. Northwest Medical Center—Oil City CampusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Hidden Creek, L.P. v. Lower Salford Township AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Spiritrust Lutheran v. Wagman Construction, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024
  4. Rosado v. Constitution State Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  5. Spiritrust Lutheran v. Wagman Construction, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2024

5 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