Ethics/Professional Responsibility
Feb. 12, 2013
Malicious prosecution decision gets it right, then gets it wrong
What is remarkable is that Silas correctly found the statute of limitations prescribed by Section 340.6 controlled, but applied Section 335.1 holding the plaintiff's delay was reasonable under the circumstances. By James Murphy, Harlan Watkins and Erik Weiss
The 2nd District Court of Appeal recently decided Silas v. Arden, 2013 DJDAR 1225 (Jan. 28, 2013), a malicious prosecution action against an attorney. The decision is noteworthy, not because the court was asked to decide what statute of limitations to apply - a crucial issue since the claim was filed over a year after it accrued - but because of how it did so. Silas considered two options: Code of Civil...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In