Cards you may also be interested in
<Introducing the 2016 Q3 Vingle Moderators>
Hello Vinglers, We are excited to announce the 2016 Q3 Vingle Moderators! As previously outlined, the Moderators will promote the growth of the Community that they and their fellow Vinglers love. From July 1st to September 30th, 2016, Moderators will bear a lot of responsibility, so we ask all Vinglers to extend their gratitude and aid to the Moderators of their Communities. As we look to consistently improve the Community Moderator system, we urge Vinglers to feel free to give us feedback and suggestions for future improvements. The 2016 Q3 Moderators Are: Kpop - @MattK95 BTS - @KokoroNoTakara VIXX - @JiyongLeo Madtown - @Vixxstarlight1 UP10TION - @JinsPrincess86 GOT7 - @luna1171 BTOB - @Helixx Jay Park - @pandaqueenbee G-Dragon - @BBxGD Block B - @YongRaviZiMon Cross Gene - @AimeeH EXO - @Tigerlily84 SHINee - @VixenViVi Korean Hip Hop - @PassTheSuga UNIQ - @MadAndrea BAP - @StefaniTre B2ST - @tayunnie Boys Republic - @QueenLee Big Bang - @KwonOfAKind SS501 - @Taijiotter Super Junior - @Gamerkyumin WINNER - @PrettieeEmm Topp Dogg - @MrsJungHoseok Romeo - @EwSeungkwan History - @MrsKyungil TOP - @Lovetop ASTRO - @Isolate Seventeen - @IsoldaPazo iKON - @xoxorittie Monsta X - @VatcheeAfandi99 Anime: @hikaymm Fairy Tail: @Tylor619 Manga - @SimplyAwkward Naruto - @Tayhar18920 One Piece - @Luffynewman Dragon Ball - @ChrisStephens Fan Art: @AimeBolanos Funny - @danidee Games - @Mikachu Travel South Korea - @Miichi Poetry - @Dynamo DC Comics - @LAVONYORK Beauty - @Hairconfetti Fan Fiction - @Sailynn Love & Relationship - @sophiamor Korean Dramas - @kpopandkimchi Taiwanese Dramas - @cindystran Congratulations, Moderators!
Business lawyers for California & San Diego
To obtain the benefit of the late-discovery exception to the provisions of CCP § 338, setting forth a three-year limitation for the bringing of actions grounded on fraud or mistake or on the official bond of a public official, the complaint must allege facts showing that the cause of action could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered prior to three years before the suit. Silver v. Watson (CalifLaw 2d Dist. July 26, 1972), 26 CalifLaw 3d 905, 103 Cal. Rptr. 576, 1972 CalifLawCALIFLAW 994. Nakase law wade business law lawyer knows the litigations. Liability on Official Bonds The statute of limitations commences to run against a cause of action upon a county treasurer’s official bond arising out of neglect of his official duty to keep the county funds under his personal control at least as early as knowledge of such breach of duty is obtained by the county. County of San Diego v. Dauer (Cal. Dec. 29, 1900), 131 Cal. 199, 63 P. 338, 1900 Cal. CALIFLAW 762. Without regard to the form of action, a surety sued upon the bond of a public officer may successfully plead subd 1if the action has been commenced after the lapse of three years following, not the discovery, but the misfeasance or malfeasance itself of the officer. Sonoma County v. Hall (Cal. May 1, 1901), 132 Cal. 589, 65 P. 12, 65 P. 459, 1901 Cal. CALIFLAW 1104, modified, (Cal. June 4, 1901), 65 P. 459, overruled, Regents of University of Cal. v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. (Cal. July 13, 1978), 21 Cal. 3d 624, 147 Cal. Rptr. 486, 581 P.2d 197, 1978 Cal. CALIFLAW 253; Norton v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. (Cal. Sept. 25, 1917), 176 Cal. 212, 168 P. 16, 1917 Cal. CALIFLAW 497; Hellwig v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. (CalifLaw Jan. 21, 1919), 39 CalifLaw 422, 179 P. 222, 1919 CalifLawCALIFLAW 191; United Bank & Trust Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. (Cal. June 30, 1928), 204 Cal. 460, 268 P. 907, 1928 Cal. CALIFLAW 705; Anderson v. Shaffer (CalifLaw Apr. 23, 1929), 98 CalifLaw 457, 277 P. 185, 1929 CalifLawCALIFLAW 730, overruled, Regents of University of Cal. v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co. (Cal. July 13, 1978), 21 Cal. 3d 624, 147 Cal. Rptr. 486, 581 P.2d 197, 1978 Cal. CALIFLAW 253; Haswell v. Costellenos (CalifLaw Sept. 28, 1932), 126 CalifLaw 427, 14 P.2d 846, 1932 CalifLawCALIFLAW 442. Guardian’s action on former tax collector’s bond which arose in 1938 was barred by three-year statute of limitations, where it was not commenced until more than twenty years thereafter, since evidence showed ward was not mentally incompetent or insane during three-year period following transaction giving rise to cause of action. Phillips v. Standard Acci. Ins. Co. (CalifLaw 1st Dist. Apr. 29, 1960), 180 CalifLaw 2d 474, 4 Cal. Rptr. 277, 1960 CalifLawCALIFLAW 2363. Pension and Retirement Rights Trial court properly found plaintiff’s claims challenging the payment of increased public employee pension benefits barred by the statute of limitations. The continuous accrual doctrine did not trigger a new limitations period every time retirement benefits were paid pursuant to the increased pension benefits approved in 2002 and 2003. Luke v. Sonoma County (CalifLaw 1st Dist. Dec. 12, 2019), 256 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489, 43 CalifLaw 5th 301, 2019 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1243.