Legal Opinion

Hanooka v. Pivko

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 1, 1994No. B072854PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

defendant doctors at the hospital where they maintained staff privileges complies with the notice provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 364 in order to extend the statute of limitations, and if not, whether relief can be granted pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 473. We answer both questions in the negative.

In this case, appellants Izhak Hanooka and Rina Gay Hanooka appeal from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents Jack Pivko, M.D., and John Menkes, M.D. We affirm.

Facts

Appellant Rina Hanooka flew from Israel to Los…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Woods v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Gutierrez v. MofidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Elston v. City of TurlockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. City of Ontario v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Bein v. Brechtel-Jochim Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Jackson v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  2. Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & MarmaroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Maynard v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API