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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.green2 sentences2014In order for the last overt act doctrine to apply, appellant must allege that the respondents “continue[d] to commit wrongful acts in furtherance of a conspiracy to harm another.” (Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co., supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 787 .) Again, we find that the mailing of the K-1 forms by certain respondents does not constitute a wrongful act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 1990Appellants rely upon the language of section 338(d), which sets a three-year limitations period and states in pertinent part: “The cause of action in that case [of an alleged fraud or mistake] is not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” *128 Respondent argues that this statute must be modified and shortened as to a conspiracy to defraud, by the last overt act doctrine as enunciated in Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773 [ 157 Cal.Rptr. 392 , 598 P.2d 45 ], in which the Supreme Court employed the | 2 | 4 |
Gutierrez v. Mofidgreen2 sentences1990Financial Associates (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 421 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 ] [reversing summary judgment in a conspiracy to defraud case under last overt act doctrine, and recognizing the action could also be timely because of “reasonable failure to discover facts . . . .”]; Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 897 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ] [“[T]he uniform California rule is that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his claim.” Italics in original. 1990Financial Associates (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 421 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 ] [reversing summary judgment in a conspiracy to defraud case under last overt act doctrine, and recognizing the action could also be timely because of “reasonable failure to discover facts . . . .”]; Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 897 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ] [“[T]he uniform California rule is that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his claim.” Italics in original. | 1 | 1 |
Agnew v. Parksgreen2 sentences1990(Id., at p. 788, italics in original; accord, Agnew v. Parks (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 756, 766 [ 343 P.2d 118 ].) However, the Wyatt court also recognized that the statute of limitations for a conspiracy to defraud is otherwise governed by section 338(d). ( 24 Cal.3d at p. 786 and fn. 2.) In cases in which it is alleged the fraud was not discovered until less than three years prior to the filing of suit, section 338(d) directs the action may be timely despite the fact that the last overt act is more than three years old. 1990(Id., at p. 788, italics in original; accord, Agnew v. Parks (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 756, 766 [ 343 P.2d 118 ].) However, the Wyatt court also recognized that the statute of limitations for a conspiracy to defraud is otherwise governed by section 338(d). ( 24 Cal.3d at p. 786 and fn. 2.) In cases in which it is alleged the fraud was not discovered until less than three years prior to the filing of suit, section 338(d) directs the action may be timely despite the fact that the last overt act is more than three years old. | 1 | 1 |
Livett v. F. C. Financial Associates, Ltd.green2 sentences1990Financial Associates (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 421 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 ] [reversing summary judgment in a conspiracy to defraud case under last overt act doctrine, and recognizing the action could also be timely because of “reasonable failure to discover facts . . . .”]; Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 897 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ] [“[T]he uniform California rule is that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his claim.” Italics in original. 1990Financial Associates (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 413, 421 [ 177 Cal.Rptr. 411 ] [reversing summary judgment in a conspiracy to defraud case under last overt act doctrine, and recognizing the action could also be timely because of “reasonable failure to discover facts . . . .”]; Gutierrez v. Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 897 [ 218 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 705 P.2d 886 ] [“[T]he uniform California rule is that a limitations period dependent on discovery of the cause of action begins to run no later than the time the plaintiff learns, or should have learned, the facts essential to his claim.” Italics in original. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Von Villas
green
1 sentence2022(Gibson v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1986) 781 F.2d 1334 , 1340.) “Under this doctrine, ‘[i]njury and damage in a civil conspiracy action flow from the overt acts, not from “the mere continuance of a conspiracy.” ’ ” (Ibid.) An overt act is “ ‘[A]n outward act done in pursuance of the crime and in manifestation of an intent or design, looking toward the accomplishment of the crime.’ ” (People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 243 .) The trial court found the section 1985 cause of action was untimely because the applicable statute of limitations was two years, “the actions at issue here occurred in | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Taylor v. Regents of University of California
green
1 sentence2022(Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 710 , 711 [applying statute of limitations for personal injury actions to section 1985 claim]; Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1 [two-year statute of limitations applies to personal injury actions].) “Although California law determines the length of the limitations period, federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues.” (Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2008) 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 .) In the Ninth Circuit, a conspiracy claim accrues in accordance with the last overt act doctrine. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco
green
1 sentence2022(Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (9th Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 710 , 711 [applying statute of limitations for personal injury actions to section 1985 claim]; Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1 [two-year statute of limitations applies to personal injury actions].) “Although California law determines the length of the limitations period, federal law determines when a civil rights claim accrues.” (Lukovsky v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2008) 535 F.3d 1044, 1048 .) In the Ninth Circuit, a conspiracy claim accrues in accordance with the last overt act doctrine. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gibson v. United States
green
1 sentence2022(Gibson v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1986) 781 F.2d 1334 , 1340.) “Under this doctrine, ‘[i]njury and damage in a civil conspiracy action flow from the overt acts, not from “the mere continuance of a conspiracy.” ’ ” (Ibid.) An overt act is “ ‘[A]n outward act done in pursuance of the crime and in manifestation of an intent or design, looking toward the accomplishment of the crime.’ ” (People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 243 .) The trial court found the section 1985 cause of action was untimely because the applicable statute of limitations was two years, “the actions at issue here occurred in | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ticconi v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance
green
1 sentence2016Co. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 528, 539 .) Plaintiffs allege that defendants are liable under the UCL in two ways: first, under an agency theory, for Vahedi’s undisputed violations of the law while engaging in both the fraudulent mortgage loan and the Ponzi portions of the scheme; and second, for defendants’ own conduct in connection with those schemes. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.
green
1 sentence2015(See Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 773, 786 (Wyatt).) A. Civil conspiracy “Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. [Citation.] By participation in a civil conspiracy, a coconspirator effectively adopts as his or her own the torts of other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. [Citation.] In this way, a coconspirator incurs tort liability co-equal with the immediate tortfeasors.” | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.