Legal Opinion

Lee v. Hanley

California Supreme Court

Decided August 20, 2015No. S220775PublishedCited by 164 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LIU, J.

Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 340.6(a)) provides: “An action against an attorney for a wrongful act or omission, other than for actual fraud, arising in the performance of professional services shall be commenced within one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts constituting the wrongful act or omission . . . .” We granted review to decide whether an attorney’s refusal to return a former client’s money after the client terminated the representation was “a…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Sierra Club v. State Board of ForestryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Bd. of SupervisorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010

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

3Cited by164 opinions

  1. Esg Capital Partners v. Venable LLPCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  2. T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
  3. 3123 Smb LLC v. Steven HornCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
  4. Austin v. Medicis, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  5. Parrish v. Latham & WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017

159 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