Hirsch v. Blish
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THOMPSON, J.
This is an appeal from a defendant’s summary judgment granted on the theory that plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Concluding that, despite defendant’s absence from the State of California for a period of about two weeks, Vehicle Code section 17463 does not toll the statute, we affirm the judgment.
As we must in dealing with an appeal from a summary judgment, we construe the moving party’s declarations strictly and those of the resisting party liberally to determine whether there are triable issues of fact. We recite the record in that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Rue v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Town of Santa Monica v. GuidingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Stern v. JudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Vorburg v. VorburgCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Eagle Electric Mfg. Co. v. KeenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Saylin v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- Hooks v. Southern California Permanente Medical GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Taylor v. FieldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.