California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Young v. Haines, 226 Cal.Rptr. 547, 41 Cal.3d 883, 718 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1986):
Defendants demurred on the ground that section 340.5 barred the action as untimely. Plaintiff argued that the applicable statute of limitations was not section 340.5 but section 29. Section 29 has long been judicially construed to incorporate the "delayed discovery" rule available at common law in malpractice actions (see Whitfield v. Roth (1974) 10 Cal.3d 874, 885, 112 Cal.Rptr. 540, 519 P.2d 588).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.