Legal Opinion
Espinosa v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 23, 1988No. A039154PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CHANNELL, J.
Petitioner Salvador Espinosa’s 1987 amendment to his 1984 complaint added an allegation that the City of Pittsburg, the real party in interest in this action, violated his federal civil rights. Respondent court sustained a demurrer to this amendment without leave to amend on the ground that the statute of limitations had run. Espinosa applied to this court for a writ of mandate. We find that the superior court properly sustained the demurrer, but should have given Espinosa leave to amend.
I. Facts
On May 7, 1983,1 petitioner Salvador Espinosa was arrested by police from the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of MedicineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Santamarina, Guiller v. Sears RoebuckCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2006
- Foxborough v. Van AttaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Lee v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASS'NCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers AssociatonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Harrison v. County of AlamedaDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1989
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.