441 Pa. Super. 390 - Hamilton v. Bechtel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While there are strong indications in this case that Saracina intended to bring suit against the operator of the vehicle, Robert Catoia, an amendment of the complaint, after the statute of limitations has run, to bring in a new and distinct party to the action cannot be permitted. The effect of allowing an amendment in this case would be to introduce a new party after the statute of limitations has run and, in effect, to modify the statute of limitations which this Court cannot and should not do. If the right party was in court as the result of service of process and it was merely his or its designation which was sought to be changed, we would be prone to permit the amendment. However, in the case at bar service was made on “Anthony Cotoia the within named defendant, ... by handing a true and attested copy ... to his father an adult member of his household, at his place of resident ...” The return in no way indicates that Robert Catoia was properly served and is now before the Court.... We, therefore, find that the court below was correct in refusing to permit the complaint to be amended so as to change the proper name of the defendant from Anthony Catoia to Robert Catoia.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 156 - Ferraro v. McCarthy-Pascuzzo

2. “It is the duty of the party asserting a cause of action to use all reasonable diligence to properly inform himself of the facts and circumstances upon which the right of recovery is based and to institute suit within the prescribed period. H ayward v. Medical Center, 530 Pa. 320 , 608 A.2d 1040,1042 (1992) citing Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402 , 189 A.2d 267, 269 (1963). Thus, the statute of limitations begins to run as 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. Hayward, 608 A.2d at 1042 citing Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80 , 468 A.2d 468, 471 (1983). Appellants, in the instant case, had the opportunity before the statute of limitations ran, to discover the identity of the correct party. We, therefore, find that the court below was correct in refusing to permit the complaint to be amended in order to change the proper name of the defendant from John Bechtel to William Bechtel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 156 - Ferraro v. McCarthy-Pascuzzo