Legal Opinion

Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand

California Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1971No. L. A. No. 29865PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TOBRINER, J.

In this suit for legal malpractice plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment against them grounded upon the two-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 339. That judgment rests upon the rule that a cause of action for malpractice by an attorney arises, and the limitation period commences, at the time of the negligent act. In this case, and in the companion case of Budd v. Nixen, post, page 195 [98 Cal.Rptr. 849, 491 P.2d 433], we undertake to review this rule. Upon reconsideration, we find that the rule as to legal malpractice contrasts with the rule…

2Cases cited64 opinions

  1. Comunale v. Traders & General InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. People v. DanielsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Electronic Equipment Express, Inc. v. Donald H. Seiler & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1981
  3. United States v. GuttermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  4. United States v. Jennifer Gutterman, as Administratrix C.T.A. Of the Estate of David M. Schindler, Deceased, David M. Schindler, Jr., Third-Party and v. Farrow, Cahill, Kaswell, Segura and Rader, a Legal Co-Partnership, Third-Party AndCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API