290 Pa. Super. 581 - Taylor v. Tukanowicz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Ojrdinarily most questions relating to the applicability of the defense of the statute of limitations are questions of fact to be determined by the jury. 2 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 289. Specifically, the question of whether a plaintiff has exercised due diligence in discovering the incidence of his injury is usually a jury question. Irrera v. Southeastern Pennsyvlania Transportation Authority, 231 Pa.Super. 508 , 331 A.2d 705 (1974); Carney v. Barnett, 278 F.Supp. 572 (E.D.Pa.1967). “Whether the statute has run on a claim is usually a question of law for the judge, but where, as here, the issue involves a factual determination, i.e. what is a reasonable period, the determination is for the jury.” Smith v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 397 Pa. 134, 142 , 153 A.2d 477, 479 (1959).”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 248 - Ward v. Rice · 350 Pa. Super. 68 - Baker v. Lafayette College

2. “there exists a genuine issue as to when his discovery of his injury was reasonably possible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohus v. Beloff