25 Cited authorities

Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) Cited 4,985 times 2 Legal Analyses
Concluding that the gathering and dissemination of pricing information by the petroleum companies through an independent industry service did not imply collusive action where there was no evidence the information was misused as a basis for an unlawful conspiracy; rather, evidence suggested that individual companies used all available resources “to determine capacity, supply, and pricing decisions which would maximize their own individual profits”
Reid v. Google, Inc.
50 Cal.4th 512 (Cal. 2010) Cited 1,120 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”
Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.
35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005) Cited 1,283 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."
Norgart v. Upjohn Co.
21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999) Cited 1,338 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.
44 Cal.3d 1103 (Cal. 1988) Cited 1,025 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance
Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist.
31 Cal.4th 990 (Cal. 2003) Cited 461 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that for an intervening act properly to be considered a superseding cause, "the act must have produced harm of a kind and degree far beyond the risk that the original tortfeasor should have foreseen"
Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries
7 Cal.4th 926 (Cal. 1994) Cited 248 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that fraudulent concealment “tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it”
Gutierrez v. Mofid
39 Cal.3d 892 (Cal. 1985) Cited 264 times
Holding when the patient's "'reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],' and [he] has actually 'become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of [his] remedies' the one-year period for suit begins"
Woods v. Young
53 Cal.3d 315 (Cal. 1991) Cited 210 times
Holding statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is one year and 90 days when the plaintiff sends the physician-defendant a 90-day notice of intent to sue
Eriksson v. Nunnink
191 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 109 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Eriksson, the plaintiffs' 17–year–old daughter died while participating in an equestrian competition, which required the rider and horse to jump over hurdles.
Section 340.5 - Health care provider's professional negligence
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5 Cited 617 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth three-year statute of limitations and reasons why it may be tolled
Section 312 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 312 Cited 330 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating the statute of limitations for the Unfair Business Practices Act
Section 364 - Notice to health care provider of intention to commence action
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 364 Cited 244 times
Requiring notice of intent to sue at least 90 days before filing a complaint asserting a health care provider's professional negligence

memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion of defendant

25 Cited authorities

Holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that “the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowner's premises”

Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"

Holding that a plaintiff who suspects wrongdoing but is unaware of any specific facts establishing wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, may not delay bringing an action until she discovers such facts or their legal significance

Holding that for an intervening act properly to be considered a superseding cause, "the act must have produced harm of a kind and degree far beyond the risk that the original tortfeasor should have foreseen"

Holding that fraudulent concealment “tolls the applicable statute of limitations, but only for that period during which the claim is undiscovered by plaintiff or until such time as plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered it”

Holding when the patient's "'reasonably founded suspicions [have been aroused],' and [he] has actually 'become alerted to the necessity for investigation and pursuit of [his] remedies' the one-year period for suit begins"

Holding statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is one year and 90 days when the plaintiff sends the physician-defendant a 90-day notice of intent to sue

In Eriksson, the plaintiffs' 17–year–old daughter died while participating in an equestrian competition, which required the rider and horse to jump over hurdles.

Setting forth three-year statute of limitations and reasons why it may be tolled

Stating the statute of limitations for the Unfair Business Practices Act

Requiring notice of intent to sue at least 90 days before filing a complaint asserting a health care provider's professional negligence