Legal Opinion
Camarillo v. Vaage
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 21, 2003No. D039057PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In this case we are required to consider the interplay of Code of Civil Procedure 2 section 364, subdivisions (a), (d) and (e), a MICRA notice provision, and section 474, respecting the naming of Doe defendants, on the issue of whether the section 364 requirement of giving notice of intent to commence a medical malpractice action, as applied to known potential defendants, means that no such 90-day notice need be given to potential Doe defendants, nor must a shell medical malpractice complaint naming Doe defendants be filed in order to avoid the loss of a claim due…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- In Re Marriage of BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Ginns v. SavageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Woods v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Noel v. River Hills Wilsons, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2003
- Huff v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- City of San Diego v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Advanced-Tech Security Services, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Miramontes v. PreciadoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.