Legal Opinion

Samuels v. Mix

California Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 1999No. S070599PublishedCited by 113 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*5Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

For purposes of applying the one-year-from-discovery limitation on commencement of attorney malpractice actions in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (section 340.6(a)),1 who bears the burden of proving when the plaintiff discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the defendant’s alleged malpractice? As explained below, we hold the defendant bears that burden.

Background

In October 1992, plaintiff Arlayna Samuels filed her complaint in this attorney malpractice action, amending it three days later…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Nix v. WhitesideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Buss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by113 opinions

  1. Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Smith v. Rae-Venter Law GroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Cantor Fitzgerald Inc. v. LutnickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002

108 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