Legal Opinion
Vafi v. McCloskey
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 22, 2011No. B223237PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BIGELOW, P. J.
This matter presents an issue which it seems no reported decision has addressed: Which statute of limitations applies to an action for malicious prosecution against an attorney? We conclude that the limitations period applicable to actions against attorneys under section 340.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure1 applies rather than the general statute of limitations applicable to actions for malicious prosecution under section 335.1. On this and other grounds, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS
In 2002, appellant Sassan Vafi and Kathleen Keller, who were dating at the time, decided…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Navellier v. SlettenCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Pineda v. Bank of America, N.A.California Supreme Court · 2010
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
- Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & LackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Lopez v. Sony Electronics, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2018
- Cheong Yu Yee v. Don CheungCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Roger Cleveland Golf Co. v. Krane & Smith, APCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.