Sidney v. Superior Court

198 Cal. App. 3d 710, 244 Cal. Rptr. 31 (1988)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sidney v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
198 Cal. App. 3d 710, 244 Cal. Rptr. 31 (1988)

Facts

On November 7, 1985, a vehicle driven by Pauline Kinoshita (plaintiff) collided with a car driven by Erik Sidney (defendant). On February 4, 1986, Kinoshita filed a complaint for personal injury and property damages against Sidney. On April 17, 1986, Sidney filed a cross-complaint for property damages against Al Munari Produce, the alleged owner of the vehicle that Kinoshita was driving. A year and 10 days later, on April 27, 1987, Sidney filed a motion for leave to amend his cross-complaint to add a claim for personal injuries against Kinoshita. The trial court denied Sidney’s motion because it concluded that his personal-injury claim was time-barred under the applicable one-year limitations period and that the relation-back doctrine did not apply when the original complaint related to a property-damage claim. Sidney, who alleged that the limitations period was tolled when Kinoshita filed her claim for personal injuries that she sustained in the same accident, sought mandamus relief in the court of appeal.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership