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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc.green2 sentences2026Section 850’s silence on accrual triggers a presumption that settled common accrual rules apply; we thus “assume the Legislature intended the well-settled body of law that has built up around accrual, including the traditional last element rule and its equitable exceptions, to apply fully . . . .” (Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 1193 [holding UCL, which is silent on accrual, is governed by common law accrual rules].) Thus, the petition “is governed by common law accrual rules to the same extent as any other statute.” (Id. at p. 1196.) The claim’s label “ ‘is not dispositive; instead, “the natu 2024(Id. at p. 1192.) “The limitations period, the period in which a plaintiff must bring suit or be barred, runs from the moment a claim accrues. [Citations.] Traditionally at common law, a ‘cause of action accrues “when [it] is complete with all of its elements”—those elements being wrongdoing, harm, and causation.’ [Citations.] This is the ‘last element’ accrual rule: ordinarily, the 7 statute of limitations runs from ‘the occurrence of the last element essential to the cause of action.’ [Citations.]” ( Aryeh, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 1191- 1192.) Here, the City Attorney does not challenge the | 2 | 4 |
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.green2 sentences2017(See Aryeh , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1193 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 , 292 P.3d 871 [where statute of limitations uses term "accrued" but provides no definition, we may assume "the Legislature intended the *1351 well-settled body of law that has built up around accrual, including the traditional last element rule and its equitable exceptions, to apply fully here"].) In Buttram , the court noted that it was "well settled" that "for statute of limitations purposes," a cause of action for a latent injury, such as asbestos-related mesothelioma, does not accrue "until the plaintiff discovers or reasona 2017(See Aryeh , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1193 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 , 292 P.3d 871 [where statute of limitations uses term "accrued" but provides no definition, we may assume "the Legislature intended the *1351 well-settled body of law that has built up around accrual, including the traditional last element rule and its equitable exceptions, to apply fully here"].) In Buttram , the court noted that it was "well settled" that "for statute of limitations purposes," a cause of action for a latent injury, such as asbestos-related mesothelioma, does not accrue "until the plaintiff discovers or reasona | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
2 sentences2017(See Aryeh , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1193 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 , 292 P.3d 871 [where statute of limitations uses term "accrued" but provides no definition, we may assume "the Legislature intended the *1351 well-settled body of law that has built up around accrual, including the traditional last element rule and its equitable exceptions, to apply fully here"].) In Buttram , the court noted that it was "well settled" that "for statute of limitations purposes," a cause of action for a latent injury, such as asbestos-related mesothelioma, does not accrue "until the plaintiff discovers or reasona 2017(See Aryeh , supra , 55 Cal.4th at p. 1193 , 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827 , 292 P.3d 871 [where statute of limitations uses term "accrued" but provides no definition, we may assume "the Legislature intended the *1351 well-settled body of law that has built up around accrual, including the traditional last element rule and its equitable exceptions, to apply fully here"].) In Buttram , the court noted that it was "well settled" that "for statute of limitations purposes," a cause of action for a latent injury, such as asbestos-related mesothelioma, does not accrue "until the plaintiff discovers or reasona | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Lujano
green
1 sentence2022The point was adequately covered by the instructions the court gave on the prosecution’s burden and the elements of the crime. 25 In People v. Lujano (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 187 (Lujano), our colleagues in Division Seven of the Second District rejected the same instructional error claim in the context of a charge of sodomy by intoxication (see § 286, subd. (i)), and held the trial court’s refusal to give the additional instruction was neither wrong nor prejudicial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.