Gleason v. Borough of Moosic
989 A.2d 343
This text of 989 A.2d 343 (Gleason 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
Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 989 A.2d 343 (Pa. 2010).
Opinion
ORDER
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Wilson v. El-Daief
964 A.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
989 A.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gleason-v-borough-of-moosic-pa-2010.