423 Pa. Super. 304 - A. McD. v. Rosen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard of reasonable diligence is an objective or external one that is the same for all individuals. It is not a subjective standard. The fact that this individual plaintiff may have lacked knowledge of his or her injury is “irrelevant,” “the statute is tolled only if a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position would have been unaware of the salient facts.” In defining reasonable diligence, the courts have stated “[tjhere are very few facts which diligence cannot discover, but there must be some reason to awaken inquiry and direct diligence in the channel in which it would be successful. This is what is meant by reasonable diligence.” Moreover, with respect to knowledge of a claim, “plaintiffs need not know that they have a cause of action, or that the injury was caused by another party’s wrongful conduct, for once a plaintiff possesses the salient facts concerning the occurrence of his injury and who or what caused it, he has the ability to investigate and pursue his claim.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 445 Pa. Super. 1 - Colonna v. Rice · Haggart v. Cho

2. ““In applying the discovery rule, whether a plaintiff should have made a timely discovery of his or her injury is generally an issue for the jury unless the undisputed facts lead unerringly to the conclusion that the time it took to discover an injury was unreasonable as a matter of law.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 442 Pa. Super. 69 - Bigansky v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital · Weisen v. Showa Denko K.K.

3. ““ [A]s soon as the right to institute and maintain a suit arises; lack of knowledge, mistake or misunderstanding do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Pocono Int’l Raceway v. Pocono Produce, 503 Pa. 80, 84 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983). A person asserting a claim is under a duty to use “all reasonable diligence to be properly informed of the facts and circumstances upon which a potential right of recovery is based and to institute suit within the prescribed statutory period.” Id. In those circumstances where the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the injury or of its cause, the discovery rule may apply to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Id. The discovery rule is a judicially created device which provides that the limitations period begins to run when “the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know: (1) that he has been injured, and (2) that his injury has been caused by another party’s conduct.” Redenz by Redenz v. Rosenberg, 360 Pa.Super. 430, 434 , 520 A.2d 883, 885 , allocatur denied, 516 Pa. 635 , 533 A.2d 93 (1987). The statute begins to run when the injured party “possess sufficient critical facts to put him on notice that a wrong has been committed and that he need investigate to determine whether he is entitled to redress.” Brunea v. Gustin, 775 F.Supp. 844, 846 (W.D.Pa.1991), quoting Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F.2d 20, 23 (3rd Cir.1985).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Borough of Mifflinburg v. Heim · Haggart v. Cho