date of discovery rule (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

date of discovery rule in California

9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (15)

CaseFollowedCited
Parsons v. Ticknergreen
calctapp · 1995 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2022
2 sentences

2022As the court explained in Parsons v. Tickner, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 1513 , “ ‘[t]he fiduciary relationship carries a duty of full disclosure, and application of the discovery rule “prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity for an initial breach of duty by a subsequent breach of the obligation of disclosure.” [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 1526.) Thus, even if Patsy had reason to suspect Alfredo was shutting her out of the business, that suspicion was insufficient to trigger a duty to investigate given Alfredo’s alleged fiduciary duty.

2022As the court explained in Parsons v. Tickner, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th 1513 , “ ‘[t]he fiduciary relationship carries a duty of full disclosure, and application of the discovery rule “prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity for an initial breach of duty by a subsequent breach of the obligation of disclosure.” [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 1526.) Thus, even if Patsy had reason to suspect Alfredo was shutting her out of the business, that suspicion was insufficient to trigger a duty to investigate given Alfredo’s alleged fiduciary duty.

13
In Re Estate of Younggreen
calctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024
2 sentences

2022We reject this claim because “[w]e do not consider arguments that are raised for 15 Instead, “[w]here the facts adequately allege breach of fiduciary duty or undue influence, the courts will allow a date-of- discovery rule to be applied.” (Estate of Young, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 77 ; accord, Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 916 .) This approach “ ‘ “is particularly appropriate when the [fiduciary] maintains custody and control of a plaintiff’s property or interests.” [Citation]’ [Citation].” (Estate of Young, supra, at p. 77 .) The reasons for a date-of-discove

2022We reject this claim because “[w]e do not consider arguments that are raised for 15 Instead, “[w]here the facts adequately allege breach of fiduciary duty or undue influence, the courts will allow a date-of- discovery rule to be applied.” (Estate of Young, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 77 ; accord, Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 916 .) This approach “ ‘ “is particularly appropriate when the [fiduciary] maintains custody and control of a plaintiff’s property or interests.” [Citation]’ [Citation].” (Estate of Young, supra, at p. 77 .) The reasons for a date-of-discove

12
Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc.green
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022We reject this claim because “[w]e do not consider arguments that are raised for 15 Instead, “[w]here the facts adequately allege breach of fiduciary duty or undue influence, the courts will allow a date-of- discovery rule to be applied.” (Estate of Young, supra, 160 Cal.App.4th at p. 77 ; accord, Strasberg v. Odyssey Group, Inc. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 906, 916 .) This approach “ ‘ “is particularly appropriate when the [fiduciary] maintains custody and control of a plaintiff’s property or interests.” [Citation]’ [Citation].” (Estate of Young, supra, at p. 77 .) The reasons for a date-of-discove

11
April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTVgreen
calctapp · 1983 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995It is particularly appropriate when the defendant maintains custody and control of a plaintiff’s property or interests.” (April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 827 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) It follows that if the Tickner respondents had no lawful right to the catalog, their conduct did amount to a misappropriation of Parsons’s music so that the income generated from its promotion is subject to a constructive trust for the benefit of Gram Parsons’s successor in interest, Polly Parsons.

1995It is particularly appropriate when the defendant maintains custody and control of a plaintiff’s property or interests.” (April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTV (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 805, 827 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 421 ].) It follows that if the Tickner respondents had no lawful right to the catalog, their conduct did amount to a misappropriation of Parsons’s music so that the income generated from its promotion is subject to a constructive trust for the benefit of Gram Parsons’s successor in interest, Polly Parsons.

11
Boyd v. Bevilacquagreen
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1983–1983
2 sentences

1983(Boyd v. Bevilacqua (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 272, 290 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 610 ].) “Indeed, during the existence of such fiduciary relationship [of joint venture] any transaction by which one of the co-adventurers secures an advantage over the other or others is presumptively fraudulent and casts a burden on such party gaining the advantage to show fairness and good faith in all respects.” (Ibid., citations omitted.) 12 California was the first state in the nation to apply the date of discovery rule to actions for medical malpractice. 13 Maryland was also the first state to apply the discovery rule to

1983(Boyd v. Bevilacqua (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 272, 290 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 610 ].) “Indeed, during the existence of such fiduciary relationship [of joint venture] any transaction by which one of the co-adventurers secures an advantage over the other or others is presumptively fraudulent and casts a burden on such party gaining the advantage to show fairness and good faith in all respects.” (Ibid., citations omitted.) 12 California was the first state in the nation to apply the date of discovery rule to actions for medical malpractice. 13 Maryland was also the first state to apply the discovery rule to

11
Shelly v. Hansenred
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Bustamante v. Haetgreen
calctapp · 1963 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Eckert v. Schaalgreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Chavez v. Cartergreen
calctapp · 1967 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
United States Liability Insurance v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc.green
cal · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Heyer v. Flaigyellow
cal · 1969 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Alter v. Michaelgreen
cal · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Fazio v. Hayhurstgreen
calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

1971Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 596 [ 83 Cal. Rptr. 418 , 463 P.2d 770 ]; Heyer v. Flaig (1969) 70 Cal.2d 223, 231 [ 74 Cal. Rptr. 225 , 449 P.2d 161 ]; Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480, 483 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]. [15] Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 577, 580 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Eckert v. Schaal (1967) 251 Cal. App.2d 1, 5-6 [ 58 Cal. Rptr. 817 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200, 203 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210, 213 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413, 414-415 [

11
Green v. MacAdamgreen
calctapp · 1959 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

11
Morgan Clark v. Millsapgreen
cal · 1926 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971
2 sentences

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price green
md · 1969
2 sentences

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

31971–1983
Huysman v. Kirsch green
cal · 1936
2 sentences

1971On the other hand, the date of discovery rule had been adopted as to medical malpractice; Huysman v. Kirsch (1936) 6 Cal.2d 302 [ 57 P.2d 908 ], overturning an earlier precedent, had held that in an action for medical malpractice the period of limitations did not begin until discovery.

1971On the other hand, the date of discovery rule had been adopted as to medical malpractice; Huysman v. Kirsch (1936) 6 Cal.2d 302 [ 57 P.2d 908 ], overturning an earlier precedent, had held that in an action for medical malpractice the period of limitations did not begin until discovery.

21971–1971
Jensen v. Sprigg green
calctapp · 1927
2 sentences

1971Following Lally in postponing accrual of the action until damage, Jensen v. Sprigg (1927) 84 Cal.App. 519 [ 258 P. 683 ], became the first case to analyze the date of discovery rule.

1971Following Lally in postponing accrual of the action until damage, Jensen v. Sprigg (1927) 84 Cal.App. 519 [ 258 P. 683 ], became the first case to analyze the date of discovery rule.

21971–1971
Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. green
cal · 1945
1 sentence

2024Code, § 15657.7.) Likewise, “in cases involving . . . a [fiduciary] relationship facts which would ordinarily require investigation may not excite suspicion, and . . . the same degree of diligence is not required.” (Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 412, 440 .) Indeed, courts have held “the trust relationship [between fiduciaries] limits 16 the duty of inquiry.” (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 102 .) “Where the facts adequately allege breach of fiduciary duty or undue influence, the courts will allow a date-of-discovery rule to be applied, ‘“when strict adhere

12024–2024
Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital green
cal · 1976
1 sentence

2024Code, § 15657.7.) Likewise, “in cases involving . . . a [fiduciary] relationship facts which would ordinarily require investigation may not excite suspicion, and . . . the same degree of diligence is not required.” (Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 412, 440 .) Indeed, courts have held “the trust relationship [between fiduciaries] limits 16 the duty of inquiry.” (Sanchez v. South Hoover Hospital (1976) 18 Cal.3d 93, 102 .) “Where the facts adequately allege breach of fiduciary duty or undue influence, the courts will allow a date-of-discovery rule to be applied, ‘“when strict adhere

12024–2024
Garrett v. Brooklyn Hospital green
nysupct · 1982
1 sentence

1985“The rule has been continually limited to medically inserted objects and not objects plaintiffs already had in them when they presented themselves to defendants [italics added] [citation omitted].” (Garrett v. Brooklyn Hosp., supra, 454 N.Y.S.2d at p. 639 .) Appellant claims that we should apply the plain meaning rule to interpret “foreign body” because the statute does not distinguish between a foreign body introduced during medical treatment from a foreign body introduced by other means which creates a necessity for the medical treatment.

11985–1985
Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. green
md · 1978
2 sentences

1983(Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price (1969) 254 Md. 697 [ 255 A.2d 359 ].) 14 Quoting a previous decision in which it had held the discovery rule applicable to actions involving latent disease, the Maryland court noted both that “plaintiffs may, in appropriate circumstances, ‘be blamelessly ignorant’ of the fact that a tort has occurred and thus, ought not be charged with slumbering on rights they were unable to ascertain” and that “[a]voiding possible injustice in such cases outweighs the desire for repose and administrative expediency, which are the primary underpinnings of the limitations sta

1983(Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price (1969) 254 Md. 697 [ 255 A.2d 359 ].) 14 Quoting a previous decision in which it had held the discovery rule applicable to actions involving latent disease, the Maryland court noted both that “plaintiffs may, in appropriate circumstances, ‘be blamelessly ignorant’ of the fact that a tort has occurred and thus, ought not be charged with slumbering on rights they were unable to ascertain” and that “[a]voiding possible injustice in such cases outweighs the desire for repose and administrative expediency, which are the primary underpinnings of the limitations sta

11983–1983
Poffenberger v. Risser green
md · 1981
2 sentences

1983(Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price (1969) 254 Md. 697 [ 255 A.2d 359 ].) 14 Quoting a previous decision in which it had held the discovery rule applicable to actions involving latent disease, the Maryland court noted both that “plaintiffs may, in appropriate circumstances, ‘be blamelessly ignorant’ of the fact that a tort has occurred and thus, ought not be charged with slumbering on rights they were unable to ascertain” and that “[a]voiding possible injustice in such cases outweighs the desire for repose and administrative expediency, which are the primary underpinnings of the limitations sta

1983(Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price (1969) 254 Md. 697 [ 255 A.2d 359 ].) 14 Quoting a previous decision in which it had held the discovery rule applicable to actions involving latent disease, the Maryland court noted both that “plaintiffs may, in appropriate circumstances, ‘be blamelessly ignorant’ of the fact that a tort has occurred and thus, ought not be charged with slumbering on rights they were unable to ascertain” and that “[a]voiding possible injustice in such cases outweighs the desire for repose and administrative expediency, which are the primary underpinnings of the limitations sta

11983–1983
Tuck v. Thuesen red
calctapp · 1970
2 sentences

1971We also disapprove language in the following cases to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion: Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]; Tuck v. Thuesen (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 193 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 759 ]; Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 557 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 176 ]; DeGarmo v. Luther T.

1971We also disapprove language in the following cases to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion: Alter v. Michael (1966) 64 Cal.2d 480 [ 50 Cal. Rptr. 553 , 413 P.2d 153 ]; Tuck v. Thuesen (1970) 10 Cal. App.3d 193 [ 88 Cal. Rptr. 759 ]; Chavez v. Carter (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 557 [ 64 Cal. Rptr. 350 ]; Fazio v. Hayhurst (1966) 247 Cal. App.2d 200 [ 55 Cal. Rptr. 370 ]; Shelly v. Hansen (1966) 244 Cal. App.2d 210 [ 53 Cal. Rptr. 20 ]; Bustamante v. Haet (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 413 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 176 ]; DeGarmo v. Luther T.

11971–1971
Yandell v. Baker red
calctapp · 1968
2 sentences

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

11971–1971
Griffith v. Zavlaris green
calctapp · 1963
2 sentences

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

1971We conclude, however, that an action for malpractice does not accrue until the client discovers, or should discover, his cause of action; under this standard, termination of the attorney-client relationship is relevant only to the extent that the client, aided by disclosures from the former attorney or the investigations of new counsel, acquires the essential information. [27] Accord: Clark v. Millsap (1926) 197 Cal. 765, 783 [ 242 P. 918 ]; Green v. MacAdam (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 481, 487 [ 346 P.2d 474 ]. [28] In 1969 the Maryland Court of Appeals became the first court to apply a date of di

11971–1971

Where else courts name it

NY 10 (1978–2008) CA 9 (1971–2024) MI 3 (1975–1983)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check