Legal Opinion

Worthington v. Rusconi

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 3, 1994No. H011126PublishedCited by 18 opinions

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

  1. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Laird v. BlackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El SegundoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Price v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  2. Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCortCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1995
  4. Banning Ranch Conservancy v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  5. Gonzalez v. KaluCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006

13 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