COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bethlehem Steel

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bethlehem Steel

404 A.2d 692, 486 Pa. 186, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 665

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 16, 1979·No. 51·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted to consider the continued validity of the rule that the statute of limitations does not run against the Commonwealth in light of Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). But that issue should not be decided in this case because the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to allow an amendment to the answer in order to raise the statute of limitations in new matter does not constitute an abuse of discretion even if we were to hold the statute of limitations applies to the Commonwealth.

The complaint instantly was filed over three years prior to the request to amend. The pleadings had closed over five months before the request, and discovery had been proceeding during that‘period. Accordingly, the controlling question we sought to review need not now be considered.

MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed. Permission to appeal was granted to consider the continued validity of the rule that the statute of limitations does not run against the Commonwealth in light of Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways, 479 Pa. 384, 388 A.2d 709 (1978). But that issue should not be decided in this case because the Commonwealth Court’s refusal to allow an amendment to the answer in order to raise the statute of limitations in new matter does not constitute an abuse of discretion even if we were to hold the statute of limitations applies to the Commonwealth.

The complaint instantly was filed over three years prior to the request to amend. The pleadings had closed over five months before the request, and discovery had been proceeding during that‘period. Accordingly, the controlling question we sought to review need not now be considered.

MANDERINO, J., files a dissenting opinion.

COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bethlehem Steel, 404 A.2d 692, 486 Pa. 186, 1979 Pa. LEXIS 665 (Pa. 1979).

Pincite

404 A.2d 692 (COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Bethlehem Steel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related