Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KITCHING, J.
Introduction
Plaintiff sustained injuries more than five years after substantial completion of a real property improvement on which petitioner performed work. Relying on the four-year limitations period in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 1 , petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing the Los Angeles County Superior Court to vacate its ruling denying petitioner’s summary judgment motion and enter an order granting the motion.
We conclude that it is not plaintiff’s injury resulting from a patent deficiency, but substantial completion of construction of a real property…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Preston v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
- Barnhouse v. City of PinoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Winston Square Homeowner's Ass'n v. Centex West, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mills v. Forestex Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Roger E. Smith, Inc. v. SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- CREEKRIDGE TOWNHOME OWNERS ASSN., INC. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
- Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.