Legal Opinion

Marin Healthcare District v. Sutter Health

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 14, 2002No. C034127PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KOLKEY, J.

In this action, we must determine whether the judicially created doctrine enunciated in Hoadley v. San Francisco (1875) 50 Cal. 265 (Hoadley)—that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions by the state to recover property dedicated for public use against an adverse possessor—should be extended to bar the application of the statute of limitations to the state’s action to void a lease of public-use property. Because the purpose of the Hoadley doctrine is to prevent public-use property that the state cannot directly alienate from being indirectly alienated through the…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. TomanioSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Guaranty Trust Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  5. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Goehring v. Chapman UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  2. Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of StocktonCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Hydro-Mill Co. v. Hayward, Tilton & Rolapp Insurance Associates, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. Ferraro v. CamarlinghiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  5. In Re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Derivative LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2009

19 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