Court Opinion

ID: 9759415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:15:28.187157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:07.181555
License: Public Domain

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.