 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Delta Automatic Systems12/10/1998
hen the limitations period commenced on the conflict-of-interest claim. Defendants' answer brief specifically addresses the issue, arguing that Plaintiffs knew all the essential facts regarding their conflict-of-interest claim by 1987. Yet, Plaintiffs' reply brief contains no response to this argument. In this circumstance, such a failure to respond constitutes a concession on the matter. See ); D'Ardenne v. Strawbridge & Clothier, Inc., 712 A.2d 318, 326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998); Sasseen v. State Bd. of Equalization, 363 P.2d 252, 253-54 (Okla. 1961) (per curiam). This Court has no duty to search the record or research the law to "defend" in a civil case a party that fails to defend itself on an issue. We therefore affirm the district court's directed verdict on the conflict-of-interest claim.
{32} Having affirmed the dismissal of the Quintanas' claims and the directed verdict against Delta, we need not address Plaintiffs' arguments concerning damages.
III. CONCLUSION
{33} We affirm the judgment entered below.
{34} IT IS SO ORDERED.
HARRIS L HARTZ, Chief Judge
WE CONCUR: THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge LYNN PICKARD, Judge
|