Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Simonelli
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 12, 1991No. C009062PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MARLER, J.
Plaintiff, Sherman Johnson, appeals from a summary judgment in favor of defendants, James J. Simonelli and Simonelli, Simonelli & Carash, a professional law corporation, after the trial court determined that plaintiff’s action for attorney malpractice was barred by the statute of limitations. We shall affirm.
Facts
Plaintiff retained defendants on June 1, 1981, to represent him in connection with the sale of his business, Vogue Cleaners. Defendants prepared a document dated August 1, 1981, and entitled agreement of sale and sale of assets of Vogue Cleaners, which provided…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Neel v. Magana, Olney, Levy, Cathcart & GelfandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Budd v. NixenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Heyer v. FlaigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Southland Mechanical Constructors Corp. v. NixenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Bell v. HummelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Flight Line, Inc. v. TanksleyMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- Foxborough v. Van AttaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- ITT Small Business Finance Corp. v. NilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- California Aviation, Inc. v. LeedsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Radovich v. Locke-PaddonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.