Legal Opinion
Schwetz v. Minnerly
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 14, 1990No. D008300PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
NARES, J.
The trial court sustained a general demurrer and granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings brought by two developers on the ground the 10-year statute of limitations commenced to run when a notice of completion had been recorded on the plaintiffs’ residence. The court granted leave to amend. The plaintiffs did not amend the complaint, and the complaint was dismissed. This appeal followed.
Appellants argue Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 337.15 (a) should be interpreted by dividing this section into two groups: (1) a “developer” and (2) an “improver” section. Then…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lungren v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- California Teachers Ass'n v. San Diego Community College DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Regents of University of California v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1978
- Logan v. Southern California Rapid Transit DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Liptak v. Diane Apartments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Flynt v. California Gambling Control CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Industrial Risk Insurers v. the Rust Engineering Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- California Service Station and Automotive Repair Ass'n v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Rail-Transport Employees Ass'n v. Union Pacific Motor FreightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.