David v. BOROUGH OF MOOSIC
989 A.2d 343
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 23, 2010
Docket355 MAL 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 989 A.2d 343 (David v. BOROUGH OF MOOSIC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
David v. BOROUGH OF MOOSIC, 989 A.2d 343 (Pa. 2010).
Opinion
David and Leslie GLEASON, Individually and as Parents of L.L.G., a minor, Laura L. Gleason and Derek W. Gleason, Petitioners
v.
BOROUGH OF MOOSIC, Pennsylvania, Michael J. Pasonick Jr. and Associates, and M.F. Ronca & Sons, Respondents.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:
Should plaintiffs who attempt to invoke Pennsylvania's narrow discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations be required to prove their "reasonable diligence" in order to survive summary judgment, or should the determination of plaintiffs' "reasonable diligence" necessarily be submitted to the jury? See Wilson v. El-Daief, 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354 (2009).
Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Meadath
989 A.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
989 A.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-borough-of-moosic-pa-2010.