Legal Opinion
Fuller v. Tucker
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 17, 2000No. B134916PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ALDRICH, J.
Introduction
The trial court concluded plaintiff and appellant Annie Fuller (Fuller) did not properly amend her complaint to substitute in defendant and respondent Dr. James Tucker (Dr. Tucker) as a Doe defendant, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. We reverse. The trial court used the wrong legal standard in addressing the issue, and some of its factual findings are either not supported by the evidence or are irrelevant.
Factual and Procedural Background
1. Preliminary facts.
On November 13, 1995, Fuller was admitted to Long Beach Memorial Hospital for bladder lift…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Sanchez v. South Hoover HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Sparks Construction, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
- McOwen v. GrossmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Burch v. Certainteed Corp., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Camarillo v. VaageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.