Legal Opinion
Eckert v. Schaal
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 15, 1967No. Civ. 23080PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChristian, J.
In a derivative suit brought to recover secret profits gained by appellants at the expense of the corporation which they had promoted and formed, appellants cross-complained against their former attorney for negligently giving advice which led them into a position of liability to the corporation and to its shareholders. Cross-defendant attorney demurred on the ground that the cause of action against him was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339, subd. 1.) We hold that the trial court correctly sustained the demurrer.
Put into narrative form, the pertinent…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Critz v. Farmers Insurance GroupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Lattin v. GilletteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Walker v. Pacific Indemnity Co.California Court of Appeal · 1960
- Lally v. KusterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Burt v. Irvine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1965
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Kurtenbach v. TeKippeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
- Howe v. Pioneer Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- United States v. GuttermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.