Legal Opinion

Schumacher v. Worcester

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 6, 1997No. B100999PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

FUKUTO, Acting P. J.

Norma E. Worcester appeals from the judgment entered following the granting of Kern W. Schumacher’s motion for summary judgment in his action to foreclose a street improvement bond issued by the County of Los Angeles to pay for certain public improvements to Worcester’s property. Worcester contends that Schumacher’s claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. She also contends the lien securing the payment of the bond was extinguished pursuant to Civil Code section 2911. We find the applicable statute of limitations extended by Worcester’s petition for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wells v. California Tomato Juice, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Worth v. WorthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Graybar Electric Co. v. LovingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kertesz v. OstrovskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  2. INCO DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Naegele v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.California Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Ass'n., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012

3 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