Legal Opinion

Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 27, 1996No. B097730PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIVCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Preston v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Barnhouse v. City of PinoleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
  5. 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

  1. Mills v. Forestex Co.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  2. Roger E. Smith, Inc. v. SHN Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. CREEKRIDGE TOWNHOME OWNERS ASSN., INC. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  5. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2020

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API