Legal Opinion
Orr v. City of Stockton
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 4, 2007No. C050196PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
DAVIS, Acting P. J.
In this appeal, we conclude that the filing of a petition to perpetuate testimony or preserve evidence under Code of Civil Procedure section 2035.010 et seq. does not constitute the filing of a “suit” for purposes of satisfying the six-month statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 945.6, subdivision (a)(1), of the California Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.; hereafter, the Tort Claims Act.) Consequently, we reverse.
Background
On May 12, 2002, plaintiff Paul Orr (Orr) was involved in an automobile collision with a City of Stockton (City)…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- State v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- Foster-Gardner, Inc. v. National Union Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- DuBois v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- California Cigarette Concessions, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & RehabilationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- J.M. v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Estill v. Cnty. of Shasta, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Estill v. County of ShastaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Metabyte v. Technicolor S.A.California Court of Appeal · 2023
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.