Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

238 F.2d 617

Docket No. 11967.

De Groff v. Hunsicker

Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Nov. 3, 1956.

Decided Nov. 23, 1956.

Third Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1956-11-23

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1982

2 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · De Groff v. Hunsicker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1956-11-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*618Cormac J. Malloy, Philadelphia, Pa. (Gray, Anderson & Schaffer, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

¶2Henry Temin, Philadelphia, Pa. (Max E. Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

¶3Before GOODRICH, McLAUGHLIN and STALEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This is an appeal from a decision of the district court dismissing the claim of plaintiffs in an action for injuries sustained in Virginia. The sole question involved is whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations in Virginia. If it is then, under the borrowing statute in Pennsylvania, it is barred here, Pa. Stat.Ann. tit. 12, § 39, Purdon 1953. If barred in the state court it is also barred in federal court in a case depending upon diversity for federal jurisdiction as this one does. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 1945, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079.

¶6Interpretation of the Virginia legislation upon this subject is not too easy a task but has been well done by Judge Van Dusen who heard the case in the district court. D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 141 F. Supp. 592. We have nothing to add to his analysis of the Virginia decisions and statutes.

¶7The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

/238/f2d/617 · .json · Public domain