Stancris Sales Co. v. Yong
This text of 6 Am. Samoa 3d 39 (Stancris Sales Co. v. Yong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering High Court of American Samoa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION AND ORDER
The trial court awarded summary judgment to appellees finding that appellant’s cause of action for' fraud was barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, the court found that .appellant “knew or should have known” the evidentiary basis of his claim by a certain time frame. Stancris Sales Co., v. Yong, CA No. 47-99, slip op. at 4 (Trial Div. Sept. 9, 1999) (Order Granting Defense Motion for Summary Judgment).
We find that the statute of limitations presents a triable issue of fact and therefore conclude that summary judgment is not appropriate; T.C.R.C.P. Rule 56. We accordingly reverse and remand.
Appellee’s motion for T.C.R.C.P. Rule 11 sanctions is denied.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 Am. Samoa 3d 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stancris-sales-co-v-yong-amsamoa-2002.