Legal Opinion
Lipman v. Rice
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 28, 1963No. Civ. 20469PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDevine, J.
The problem in this case is that of applicability of the statute of limitations to an amended complaint, as pleaded by a defendant who plaintiff contends was a fictitiously designated party in the first complaint.
On August 26, 1958, plaintiff filed an action for damages against a school district of which she had been superintendent and against several public officials, some of whom were officers of the district, and some not. The complaint charged a malicious course of conduct which was designed to obtain the removal of plaintiff from her position and resulted in impairing her reputation and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Irving v. CarpentierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Olds v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Stockton Terminal & Eastern RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Gates v. Wendling Nathan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- McCorkle v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Dieckmann v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Garrett v. Crown Coach Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Stephens v. BerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Scherer v. MarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.