Sato v. Van Denburgh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing tort of professional negligence against accountant and applying two-year statute of limitations requirement applicable to tort claims
• recognizing general principle but applying shorter statute of limitations based on “facts as alleged in the instant case”
• providing that a non-moving party must “present, either by affidavit or some other evidence, facts controverting the [moving party’s] affidavit”
• affirming that if a party fails to controvert the moving party’s statement of facts in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party’s facts may be considered true
• explaining that “the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, of the defendant’s negligent conduct, or when the plaintiff is first able to sue” (internal citations omitted)
• declining to apply contract statute of limitations in malpractice action against accountant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).