Worthington v. Rusconi
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
COTTLE, P. J.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court determined, on a summary judgment motion, that plaintiff’s attorney malpractice action was time barred. The applicable statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.6) 1 is tolled during that period “[t]he attorney continues to represent the plaintiff regarding the specific subject matter in which the alleged wrongful act or omission occurred . . . .” (§ 340.6, subd. (a)(2).) In the court below, defendant asserted that his representation of plaintiff ceased, as a matter of law, more than one…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El SegundoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Price v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCortCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
- Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Gonzalez v. KaluCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.