California Court of Appeal January 2, 2008, H026841 (Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto)

MIHARA, J., Dissenting.

The majority opinion misconstrues both the evidence and the law in its analysis of the statute of limitations issue. As a result, the majority opinion erroneously rejects the City of Palo Alto’s (City) contention that it was entitled to prevail on its claim that the federal excessive force cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.