Beverly Hospital v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES CTY.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JOHNSON, J.
In this case we hold a mistrial, new trial or reversal of the judgment on appeal automatically restarts the time limitations on discovery. Thus, where a mistrial was declared, plaintiff’s subsequent demand for exchange of expert witness information was timely because it was made more than 70 days before the date set for retrial.
Facts and Proceedings Below
This is a medical malpractice action. The case was set for trial to commence on May 14, 1992. After this trial date was set, the parties engaged in a timely exchange of information concerning each other’s expert witnesses…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Greyhound Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- California Manufacturers Ass'n v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Estate of BartholomaeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Richaud v. JenningsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Province v. Center for Women's Health & Family BirthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court of Riverside Cty.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Stanchfield v. Hamer Toyota, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.