Legal Opinion

Shirk v. Vista Unified School District

California Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 2007No. S133687PublishedCited by 245 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

In 2002, the Legislature added a statutory provision that “revived” for the calendar year 2003 those causes of action for childhood sexual molestation that would otherwise have been barred “solely” by expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1, *205subd. (c).)1 Does that provision also apply when a plaintiff suing a public entity has failed to first present a timely claim to the entity, as required by the government claims statute (Gov. Code, § 911.2)? Our answer is “no.”

I

Because this appeal arises from a ruling on a demurrer, we treat the…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
  4. City of San Jose v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978

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

3Cited by245 opinions

  1. Miklosy v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. North Bay Regional Center v. MaldonadoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Doe v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. DiCampli-Mintz v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

240 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