Legal Opinion
Taylor v. Forte Hotels International
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 31, 1991No. D012206PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WIENER, Acting P. J.
—We decide in this appeal that the 90-day limitations period of Code of Civil Procedure section 341a “for the recovery or conversion of personal property, wearing apparel, trunks, valises or baggage” left at a hotel does not apply to actions seeking damages against the hotel based on negligence or breach of contract. We therefore reverse the judgment with instructions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer of defendant Forte Hotels International (FHI) to plaintiff Linda Taylor’s third amended complaint.
Factual and Procedural Background
We accept as true the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- People v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Kimmel v. GolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Great Lakes Properties, Inc. v. City of El SegundoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Wells v. Marina City Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Arnett v. Dal CieloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Thiara v. Spycher Bros. (In Re Thiara)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- In Re: Ronda S. Peklar, Debtor. Ronda S. Peklar v. Lloyd Ikerd, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.