302 Pa. Super. 124 - Stein v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

65 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The test by which the time at which a discovery is made is determined by the following standard which we recently discussed in Anthony v. Koppers Co., Inc., 284 Pa.Super. 81, 96-97 , 425 A.2d 428, 436 (1981), reversed on other grounds 496 Pa. 119 , 436 A.2d 181 (1981). There has been some dispute or confusion, as to the exact level of knowledge a plaintiff must have before the statute of limitations will start to run. Judge Harry TARIFF of the Court of Common Pleas of Phila delphia has recently set forth an excellent statement of the rule, as follows: Ayers’ progeny have struggled primarily with the question of reasonableness of plaintiff’s conduct in attaining the appropriate level of cognitive knowledge which ultimately prompts a timely lawsuit. With the question of “reasonableness” as a constant qualification running through the decisional law, the principle emerges that three independent phases of knowledge must be known or knowable to plaintiff before the limitation period commences: (1) knowledge of the injury; (2) knowledge of the operative cause of the injury; and (3) knowledge of the causative relationship between the injury and the operative conduct. (302 Pa.Superior Ct. 124, 448 A.2d 558 )”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 307 Pa. Super. 261 - Petri v. Smith

2. ““The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the statute of limitations in a personal injury malpractice case does not begin to run until the plaintiff or injured party either is aware or reasonably should be aware of the harm he has suffered. In Ayers v. Morgan, 397 Pa. 282 , 154 A.2d 788 (1959), the rule was applied to a sponge left in the complainant’s abdomen during an ulcer operation. The source of pain which the complainant suffered was not discovered for nine years.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fox v. Byrne

3. “[t]he court was willing to search the' pleadings to determine whether the [plaintiffs] had at any time asserted that they were-unable-to discover the injury or- could not have-been able to discover the injury until such time as would prevent-the statute from acting as a bar.”). Developer’s Complaint states in relevant part:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hidden Creek, L.P. v. Lower Salford Township Authority