Legal Opinion

White v. Lieberman

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 2002No. B147327PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GILBERT, P. J.

As a rule, the statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action begins to run on the date judgment is entered in the trial court. It is tolled while the case is on appeal. If the judgment is affirmed, the statute begins to run again when the Court of Appeal issues its remittitur.

Here we hold that when reversal of a trial court judgment in the Court of Appeal gives rise to a possible cause of action for malicious prosecution, the statute of limitations first begins to run on the date the Court of Appeal issues its remittitur.

We also decide an issue concerning…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & OpportunityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Babb v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Wilson v. Parker, Covert & ChidesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Hendy v. LosseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Chavez v. MendozaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarcheCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Wong v. JingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
  3. Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
  4. S. B. Beach Properties v. BertiCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Hutton v. HAFIFCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

17 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