Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kitzig v. Nordquistgreen2 sentences2023(Drexler, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 1189 .) Section 340.5’s discovery rule “sets forth two alternate tests for triggering the limitations period: (1) a subjective test requiring actual suspicion by the plaintiff that the injury was caused by wrongdoing; and (2) an objective test requiring a showing that a reasonable person would have suspected the injury was caused by wrongdoing. [Citation.] The first to occur under these two tests begins the limitations period.” (Kitzig v. Nordquist (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391 .) Under the first test, the plaintiff need only suspect someone has done som 2022(Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 699 ; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 ; see Garabet v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1538 [statute of limitations commences to run when the patient is aware of the physical manifestations of his or her injury without regard to awareness of the negligent cause].) Under the discovery rule of section 340.5, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. E | 3 | 5 |
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.yellow2 sentences2022(Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 699 ; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 ; see Garabet v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1538 [statute of limitations commences to run when the patient is aware of the physical manifestations of his or her injury without regard to awareness of the negligent cause].) Under the discovery rule of section 340.5, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. E 2000Under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5’s discovery rule, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing . . . .” (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 ]; see Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397-398 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 ].) This rule sets forth two alternate tests for triggering the limitations period: (1) a subjective test requiring actual suspicion by the plaintiff that the injury was caused by wrongdoing; and (2) an objective tes | 2 | 2 |
Norgart v. Upjohn Co.green2 sentences2000Under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5’s discovery rule, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing . . . .” (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 ]; see Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397-398 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 ].) This rule sets forth two alternate tests for triggering the limitations period: (1) a subjective test requiring actual suspicion by the plaintiff that the injury was caused by wrongdoing; and (2) an objective tes 2000Under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5’s discovery rule, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing . . . .” (Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 658 , 751 P.2d 923 ]; see Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397-398 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 , 981 P.2d 79 ].) This rule sets forth two alternate tests for triggering the limitations period: (1) a subjective test requiring actual suspicion by the plaintiff that the injury was caused by wrongdoing; and (2) an objective tes | 1 | 3 |
GARABET v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2022(Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 699 ; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 ; see Garabet v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1538 [statute of limitations commences to run when the patient is aware of the physical manifestations of his or her injury without regard to awareness of the negligent cause].) Under the discovery rule of section 340.5, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. E | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1994Proc., § 437c, subd. (0; see Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 56, 60 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 827 ].) The parties agree that commencement of the statute of limitations is to be governed by the discovery rule of section 340.5. 1994Proc., § 437c, subd. (0; see Schmidt v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 56, 60 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 827 ].) The parties agree that commencement of the statute of limitations is to be governed by the discovery rule of section 340.5. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Knowles v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2023(Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383 , 397-398; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 .) A plaintiff has presumptive knowledge of the negligent injury once he has “ ‘notice or information of 8 circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation.’ ” (Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 896 ; accord, Kitzig v. Nordquist, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391 [one-year statute of limitations begins to run when plaintiff suspects or should suspect wrongdoing caused injury].) Here, the 2022(Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 699 ; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 ; see Garabet v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1538 [statute of limitations commences to run when the patient is aware of the physical manifestations of his or her injury without regard to awareness of the negligent cause].) Under the discovery rule of section 340.5, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. E | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Gutierrez v. Mofid
green
1 sentence2023(Norgart v. Upjohn Co. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383 , 397-398; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 .) A plaintiff has presumptive knowledge of the negligent injury once he has “ ‘notice or information of 8 circumstances to put a reasonable person on inquiry, or has the opportunity to obtain knowledge from sources open to his investigation.’ ” (Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 896 ; accord, Kitzig v. Nordquist, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1391 [one-year statute of limitations begins to run when plaintiff suspects or should suspect wrongdoing caused injury].) Here, the | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Drexler v. Petersen
green
1 sentence2023(Drexler, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 1189 .) Section 340.5’s discovery rule “sets forth two alternate tests for triggering the limitations period: (1) a subjective test requiring actual suspicion by the plaintiff that the injury was caused by wrongdoing; and (2) an objective test requiring a showing that a reasonable person would have suspected the injury was caused by wrongdoing. [Citation.] The first to occur under these two tests begins the limitations period.” (Kitzig v. Nordquist (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1391 .) Under the first test, the plaintiff need only suspect someone has done som | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding
green
1 sentence2022(Massey v. Mercy Medical Center Redding, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 699 ; Knowles v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1295 ; see Garabet v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1538 [statute of limitations commences to run when the patient is aware of the physical manifestations of his or her injury without regard to awareness of the negligent cause].) Under the discovery rule of section 340.5, “the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing, that someone has done something wrong to her.” (Jolly v. E | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016(Norgart v. Upjohn Company (1999) 21 Cal.4th 383, 397 ; Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 788, 797 ; Gutierrez v. Mofid, supra, 39 Cal.3d 4 Section 340.5 further provides: "In no event shall the time for commencement of legal action exceed three years unless tolled for any of the following: (1) upon proof of fraud, (2) intentional concealment, or (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of the injured person." These tolling provisions apply only to the outside three-year statute of limitations. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Brown v. Bleiberg
green
1 sentence1984(Brown v. Bleiberg, supra, 32 Cal.3d at pp. 432-433, citations and fn. omitted.) Thus, prior to the enactment of section 340.5 the discovery rule would extend the statute of limitations period indefinitely if a patient could not have discovered her cause of action through the exercise of diligence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.