Legal Opinion

Budd v. Nixen

California Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1971No. L. A. 29870PublishedCited by 308 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TOBRINER, J.

— This case is a companion to Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & Gelfand, ante, page 176 [98 Cal.Rptr. 837, 491 P.2d 421], also decided today. In Neel we conclude that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice, as for all professional malpractice, commences to run when the client discovers, or should reasonably discover, his cause of action. Plaintiff here discovered the malpractice on September 14, 1964, but did not bring suit until September 11, 1967, almost three years later. The case must turn, therefore, upon the issue of when the cause of action accrued.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Lucas v. HammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Maguire v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
  5. Atkins v. CroslandTexas Supreme Court · 1967

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

3Cited by308 opinions

  1. Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Hendrickson v. SearsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1974
  3. Davies v. KrasnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Burgess v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Rizzo v. HainesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

303 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