Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

885 A.2d 117

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 20, 2005

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2005-10-20

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2017

5 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-10-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1CONCURRING OPINION BY

Judge LEADBETTER.

¶2I join in the analysis of the well-reasoned majority opinion, but write separately to emphasize two points. First, I do not read this opinion to suggest that statutes of repose are immune from a due process analysis, but only that 1) they are not subject to equitable tolling and 2) the statute of repose involved here passes muster under the due process analysis set forth in Ciccarelli. Second, I believe the application of the three-year statute of repose in the lemon law context results in an unintended and inequitable consequence, but this result must be addressed by the General Assembly, not this court. Because the three-year limitation on filing refund requests is, on its face, both crystal clear and reasonable, this court must affirm the orders of the Board of Finance and Revenue.

/885/a2d/117 · .json · Public domain