Breceda v. Gamsby
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.
This is a pleading case. The trial court held that the statute of limitations had barred the action against the defendant Jay F. Gamsby. The original complaint was filed before the running of the applicable statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. 3—one year). Doe defendants were named under Code of Civil Procedure section 474, which permits unknown defendants to be sued originally under fictitious names with their true names substituted when ascertained. Gamsby was named, substituted and served as a Doe defendant, and two amended complaints were filed, all more than one year…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Lipman v. Brisbane Elementary School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Saala v. McFarlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Esrey v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Womble v. Singing River Hosp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1993
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Barnes v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Scherer v. MarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Shelton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.