Legal Opinion
Jackson v. Doe
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 9, 2011No. A128065PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JONES, P. J.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.11 “the limitations period for actions to recover damages for childhood sexual abuse is the later of either the plaintiff’s 26th birthday or three years from the date the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that psychological injury occurring after turning 18 was caused by the sexual abuse. [Citation.]” (Dutra v. Eagleson (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 216, 222 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 788] (Dutra).) A plaintiff who is 26 years of age or older when such an action is commenced must file “certificates of merit” executed by…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- Walter W. v. Jacqueline W.California Supreme Court · 2002
- Nathanson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Strauch v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Maynard v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Pga W. Residential Ass'n, Inc. v. Hulven Int'l, Inc., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Market Lofts Community Ass'n v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Vitkievicz v. ValverdeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Doe v. San Diego Imperial CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- PD Doe v. San Diego-Imperial Council, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.