Legal Opinion
Sidney v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 17, 1988No. B029084PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
THOMPSON, J.
In this case we hold that the statute of limitations does not bar amending a compulsory cross-complaint to state a cause of action against the plaintiff for a different injury arising from the same accident where the cause of action was not barred when the original complaint was filed. Petitioner Erik Sidney seeks a writ of mandate commanding respondent superior court to grant him leave to amend his cross-complaint to seek damages for personal injury as well as property loss. Petitioner is the defendant in a negligence action (Kinoshita v. Sidney, Super. Ct. L.A. County,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Addison v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. FalesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
- McDougald v. HuletCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009
- Fair v. BakhtiariCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Boyer v. JensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- ZF Micro Devices, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Burger v. KuimelisDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.