Legal Opinion

Dew v. Appleberry

California Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1979No. S.F. 23950PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TOBRINER, J.

The instant case presents the issue whether the statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 351 1 when defendant, although physically absent from the state, was still amenable to service of process in California during the period of his absence. Section 351 provides that the time of a defendant’s absence from the state after a cause of action has accrued against him “is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.” 2 (la) As we shall explain, we have concluded that defendant’s amenability to process is irrelevant under…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Bollinger v. National Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Bauserman v. BluntSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  3. Scherling v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  5. In Re WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. G. D. Searle & Co. v. CohnSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Watts v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Lewis I. Abramson World Coin Partners v. Joel F. BrownsteinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
  4. Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Nickelsberg v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991

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