Legal Opinion
Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 21, 2001No. B145169PublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WOODS, J.
Appellant Kim David Lockley appeals from a judgment of dismissal upon the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondent Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort et al. (hereinafter Law Office) on Lockley’s cause of action for legal malpractice. Lockley alleged Law Office failed to protect Lockley’s legal interests in a workers’ compensation claim. Law Office demurred to Lockley’s first amended complaint on the grounds the cause of action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Lockley claims the trial court…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Sosinsky v. GrantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- In re VicksCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.