Connor v. Schenck
Mrs. Oleen Connor v. Dr. Sam Schenck
Opinion
*795 Per CueiaM.
Conceding, but not deciding, the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury on the issue of defendant’s negligence in 1942, we are confronted by the fact that plaintiff waited some eleven years before commencing this action; and careful consideration of plaintiff’s evidence compels the conclusion that there is no evidence whatever of defendant’s fraudulent concealment such as would constitute a basis of liability or such as would operate to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Hence, plaintiff’s action is barred by the three-year statute; and we need not consider other grounds urged by defendant in support of the judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.