Gleason v. Borough of Moosic
989 A.2d 343, 605 Pa. 319, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 255
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gleason v. Borough of Moosic. Read the opinion of the Court — 609 Pa. 353 →
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 [320]*320required 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
Gleason v. Borough of Moosic, 989 A.2d 343, 605 Pa. 319, 2010 Pa. LEXIS 255 (Pa. 2010).
989 A.2d 343 (Gleason v. Borough of Moosic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wilson v. El-Daief
964 A.2d 354 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)