Legal Opinion
Department of Mental Hygiene v. Hsu
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 13, 1963No. Civ. 20584PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDraper, P. J.
The question here is whether the one-year statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proe., § 340, subd. 3, or the two-year provision (Code Civ. Proe., § 339, subd. 1), applies to an action for malicious prosecution.
Plaintiff department sued to recover costs of care of defendants, husband and wife, during their separate commitments to Napa State Hospital. Defendants cross-complained, joining with the department, its director, the hospital, its superintendent and three resident physicians, and the two medical examiners who recommended commitment. Dismissal followed sustaining of demurrers without leave…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hutchinson v. AinsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Piller v. S. Pac. R.R.California Supreme Court · 1877
- Huntly v. Zurich General Accident & Liability InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Simons v. EdouardeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- McCusker v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cain v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Tu-Vu Drive-In Corp. v. DaviesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
- Stavropoulos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Northwest Airlines, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim v. Antonio S. Camacho, Dba Westpac Freight, Defendant-Third-Party v. Pacair Ltd., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Soble v. KallmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.