Feddersen rule in California

6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1996–2019 0 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Van Dyke v. Dunker & Acedgreen calctapp · 1996 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2002–2017 2 sentences 2007(Apple Valley, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 944—947.) It cited Van Dyke, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th 446 , an accounting malpractice case in which the appellate court also declined to apply the Feddersen rule. 2007(Apple Valley, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 944—947.) It cited Van Dyke, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th 446 , an accounting malpractice case in which the appellate court also declined to apply the Feddersen rule.	2	4
Apple Valley Unified School District v. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co.green calctapp · 2002 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007(Apple Valley, supra, at p. 944.) The appellate court disagreed, holding that the district sustained actual injury “no later than early 1998, when the [district recognized the allegedly improper conduct and incurred out-of-pocket expenses [i.e., investigative and attorney fees] to determine its extent.” (Id. at p. 951.) In so concluding, the Apple Valley court held that the Feddersen rule of accrual was inapplicable to the case before it. 2007(Apple Valley, supra, at p. 944.) The appellate court disagreed, holding that the district sustained actual injury “no later than early 1998, when the [district recognized the allegedly improper conduct and incurred out-of-pocket expenses [i.e., investigative and attorney fees] to determine its extent.” (Id. at p. 951.) In so concluding, the Apple Valley court held that the Feddersen rule of accrual was inapplicable to the case before it.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
Curtis v. Kellogg & Andelson green calctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2019The defendant accounting firm "gave tax advice to [the plaintiffs regarding expenses] . . . . and prepared tax returns listing those expenses on the Corporation's income tax returns for the relevant years." (Curtis, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 495 , emphasis added.) The Curtis court followed Feddersen in finding that the statute of limitations accrued when the taxing agency assessed a tax deficiency. 2019The defendant accounting firm "gave tax advice to [the plaintiffs regarding expenses] . . . . and prepared tax returns listing those expenses on the Corporation's income tax returns for the relevant years." (Curtis, supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 495 , emphasis added.) The Curtis court followed Feddersen in finding that the statute of limitations accrued when the taxing agency assessed a tax deficiency.	2	2007–2019
Leonhart v. Atkinson green md · 1972 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
CDT, Inc. v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, C.P.A., P.C. green arizctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Mills v. Garlow green wyo · 1989 1 sentence 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Thomas v. Cleary green alaska · 1989 1 sentence 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Murphy v. Campbell green tex · 1998 1 sentence 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Atkins v. Crosland green tex · 1967 1 sentence 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck green cal · 1998 2 sentences 2007(Ibid.) Likening the circumstances in Van Dyke to those before it, the Apple Valley court found Feddersen inapplicable: “As in Van Dyke , the alleged malpractice in this case was not negligent preparation of a tax return, but a representation which induced detrimental reliance.” (Apple Valley, supra, at p. 946.) It therefore agreed with “Van Dyke’s determination that the Feddersen rule should not apply outside of the factual context in which it was formulated, i.e., negligent preparation of a tax return.” (Id. at p. 947.) After concluding that the Feddersen rule was inapplicable, the Apple Val 2007(Ibid.) Likening the circumstances in Van Dyke to those before it, the Apple Valley court found Feddersen inapplicable: “As in Van Dyke , the alleged malpractice in this case was not negligent preparation of a tax return, but a representation which induced detrimental reliance.” (Apple Valley, supra, at p. 946.) It therefore agreed with “Van Dyke’s determination that the Feddersen rule should not apply outside of the factual context in which it was formulated, i.e., negligent preparation of a tax return.” (Id. at p. 947.) After concluding that the Feddersen rule was inapplicable, the Apple Val	1	2007–2007
Chisholm v. Scott green nmctapp · 1974 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
LaMure v. Peters green nmctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Sladky v. Lomax green ohioctapp · 1988 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Wynn v. Estate of Holmes green oklacivapp · 1991 1 sentence 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Streib v. Veigel green idaho · 1985 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Clark v. Deloitte & Touche LLP green utah · 2001 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Feldman v. Granger green md · 1969 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Snipes v. Jackson green ncctapp · 1984 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Gray v. Estate of Barry green ohioctapp · 1995 2 sentences 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu 2007(See, e.g., Thomas v. Cleary (Alaska 1989) 768 P.2d 1090 [reversing damage award where there had been no deficiency assessment; no accounting malpractice claim had accrued]; CDT v. Addison, Roberts & Ludwig (Ct.App. 2000) 198 Ariz. 173 [ 7 P.3d 979 ] [adopting Feddersen rule in context of sales tax deficiency assessment by California State Board of Equalization]; Streib v. Veigel (1985) 109 Idaho 174 [ 706 P.2d 63 ]; Leonhart v. Atkinson (1972) 265 Md. 219 [ 289 A.2d 1 ]; Feldman v. Granger (1969) 255 Md. 288 [ 257 A.2d 421 ] [receipt of deficiency notice marked latest date of accrual of statu	1	2007–2007
Baltins v. James green calctapp · 1995 2 sentences 1996(Baltins v. James, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1196 .) In other words, actual injury occurs for purposes of the statute of limitations when the client finally suffers a detriment, which is not merely potential or tentative, as a direct result of the malpractice. 1996(Baltins v. James, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at p. 1196 .) In other words, actual injury occurs for purposes of the statute of limitations when the client finally suffers a detriment, which is not merely potential or tentative, as a direct result of the malpractice.	1	1996–1996

Where else courts name it

CA 6 (1996–2019) IL 5 (2010–2011)

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