Schifando v. City of Los Angeles
31 Cal.4th 1074 (Cal. 2003) Cited 1,272 timesDenying request where the materials sought to be judicially noticed were not particularly supportive of the respondent's cause or relevant to the action and noting that "[n]o party has alleged" what the amicus curiae had purported to respond to
Quarry v. Doe I
53 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2012) Cited 110 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that the legislature may revive time-barred claims if it does so with "express language of revival"
Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles
247 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 28 timesIn Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 953 (Doe I), we held that a lawsuit brought by two men in 2014 for molestation they suffered at the hands of a priest in the late 1970's and early 1980's was untimely, but remanded to give the men an opportunity to amend their complaint to invoke the tolling provisions of Insurance Code section 11583.
Doe v. Doe
208 Cal.App.4th 1185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) Cited 17 timesIn Doe v. Doe 1 (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1193, footnote 6, which involved an appeal from the sustaining of a demurrer to a complaint without leave to amend, the appellate court rejected a similar contention asserted by the respondents there.
Doe v. San Diego-Imperial Council
239 Cal.App.4th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 4 timesD065201 07-31-2015 John PD DOE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO–IMPERIAL COUNCIL et al., Defendants and Respondents. Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Irvine, John C. Manly, Vince W. Finaldi ; Esner Chang & Boyer and Holly N. Boyer for Plaintiff and Appellant. White Oliver & Amundson, San Diego, Susan L. Oliver and Juan Fernando Kish for Defendants and Respondents. McINTYRE, J. Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Irvine, John C. Manly, Vince W. Finaldi ; Esner Chang & Boyer and Holly N. Boyer for Plaintiff and