Legal Opinion
Foxborough v. Van Atta
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 28, 1994No. A061040PublishedCited by 59 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHIN, J.
— Foxborough, a general partnership, appeals after the trial court found that the statute of limitations, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, barred Foxborough’s legal malpractice action. Foxborough had sued its former attorney, respondent David Van Atta, alleging that he failed to protect Foxborough’s interests in a condominium development transaction.
Because the alleged malpractice occurred in a transactional setting, this appeal presents a novel context for construing subdivision (a)(1) and (a)(2) of section 340.6, which respectively toll the statute of limitations during…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Mesler v. Bragg Management Co.California Supreme Court · 1985
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Howell v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1990
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Jordache Enterprises Inc. v. BrobeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. BrobeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCortCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLPCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.