Naftzger v. American Numismatic Society
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ORTEGA, J.
This appeal involves an unresolved question of when the three-year limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (c) 1 commences to run on a cause of action for the return of property stolen before the 1983 amendment to that statute. We hold, as a matter of law, that the cause of action in this case accrued when the owner discovered the identity of the person in possession of the stolen property, and not when the theft occurred. We reverse the judgment and remand.
Summary
Section 338, subdivision (c) imposes a three-year limitations period for actions…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTVCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- People v. ZamoraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- O'KEEFFE v. SnyderSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at PasadenaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Andrew J. Orkin F. Mark Orkin Sarah-Rose Josepha Adler A. Heinrich Zille v. Elizabeth TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Hogar Dulce Hogar v. Community Development CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Recorded Picture Co. [Prods.] Ltd. v. Nelson Entm't, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1997
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at PasadenaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.