circumstances, the “continuing wrong” doctrine may apply: In most federal causes of action, when a .defendant’s conduct is part of a continuing practice, an action is timely so long as the last act evidencing the continuing practice falls within the limitations period.... Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1295 (3d Cir.1991). The focus is on the defendant’s “affirmative[ ] aet[s].” Id. at 1296. The Township has not committed an affirmative act since 1985. The facts of the alleged taking stabilized almost ten years before Associates filed its lawsuit. Associates is unable to allege facts which might bring it under the “continuing wrong” doctrine. See United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745, 749, 67 S.Ct. 1382, 1385, 91 L.Ed. 1789 (1947) (<HOLDING>). 2. Associates’ Cause of Action was Not
holding that city may by ordinance require abutting landowner to repair sidewalk but that the abutting landowner is not liable in an action in tort for injuries holding that the twoyear time limitation of rule 3850 does not commence until the sentence becomes final holding that a landowner may postpone suit until the situation becomes stabilized holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final holding that a landowner owed no duty of care to a contractors employee in the situation posed by the parties