Legal Opinion
O'NEILL v. Tichy
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 4, 1993No. A057688PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
Subdivision (a)(2) of section 340.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1 provides that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice is tolled during the period that the attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged malpractice occurred. In this case we hold this statutory tolling period is unaffected by the plaintiff’s knowledge of the attorney’s wrongful act or omission, as long as the representation continues.
Facts
In 1975 appellants Edwin R. O’Neill et al. retained respondents George J. Tichy II et al. 2 to…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Hensley v. CaiettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Gurkewitz v. HabermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Blakey v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- R.D.H. Communications, Ltd. v. WinstonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
- Smith v. StacyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Gonzalez v. KaluCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Worthington v. RusconiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.