Legal Opinion

Acosta v. Glenfed Development Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 29, 2005No. B163118, B165374, B169517PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CROSKEY, J.

In these consolidated appeals arising from a construction defect action, we are presented with issues relating to the application of Code of Civil Procedure, section 337.15. The plaintiffs seek reversal of a summary judgment granted to a developer/general contractor on the ground that the plaintiffs had filed their complaints more than 10 years after the substantial completion of plaintiffs’ homes. The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the willful misconduct exception set out in subdivision (f) of section 337.15 precluded defendants’ reliance on the 10-year…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Privette v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Varshock v. Department of ForestryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2018
  3. Anderson v. Fitness International, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Calemine v. SamuelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009

14 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