Compiled January, 2023
Our review of the annotated history reveals the following legislative history (every “c.” below represents a separate legislative bill):
Added: 1979, c. 973
Amended:
• 1983, c. 414: in subdivision (a), substituted “every” for “any” preceding “action”, inserted “including a cross-complaint”, and inserted “or indemnity”, and substituted “by” for “in” preceding “subdivision”; in subdivision (b), inserted “or cross-complainant” in the first sentence; in subdivision (b)(1), inserted a comma following “state”, inserted “who” preceding “teaches”, inserted “is licensed to practice in the state or any other state, in the same discipline as the defendant or cross-defendant and”, and added the second sentence; in subdivision (c), deleted “such” preceding “certificate”, and added a comma following “filed”; in subdivision (e), substituted “The” for “Such” preceding “privilege”; in subdivision (g), inserted “in accordance with” and “or a motion to strike pursuant to Section 435”; and, in subdivision (h), substituted “1987” for “1984”, and substituted “that” for “such” preceding “date”.
• 1986, c. 1231: in subdivision (h), substituted “1989” for “1987”.
• 1988, c. 1070: rewrote subdivision (h), which read: “This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 1989, and as of that date is repealed.”
• 1990, c, 204: added subdivision (i) defining action; and made nonsubstantive changes in subdivision (a).
• 1991, c. 272: in subdivision (h), in the second paragraph, substituted “January 1, 1997” for “January 1, 1992” as the repeal date of the section.
• 1995, c. 241: in the first sentence of subdivision (b)(1), inserted “and received an opinion from” following “has consulted with”; added the third sentence of subdivision (b)(1), relating to contents of the opinion; in subdivision (h), deleted the second paragraph which related to repeal of the section on Jan. 1, 1997; and made nonsubstantive changes.
• 1999, c. 176: in subdivision (a), inserted references to cross-complaint, cross-defendant, and cross-plaintiff; and inserted “and serve”.
Eight bills affected this section.
Tracing Statutory Language:
- Research fees can be minimized by ordering only the bills that affected specific subdivisions or phrases of interest to you.
- Changes to statutes can sometimes be determined by the annotations provided by Deering’s, Westlaw, and Lexis.
- If annotations are not available, one strategy is to look at each chaptered law noted above to observe the changes. Another strategy is to retain us to trace your language and report our findings back to you.
Since 1974, Legislative Intent Service, Inc. has provided the legislative and regulatory history for all state statutes and regulations. You can order legislative history research in two different ways:
- Traditional Custom Research for a per-bill fixed research fee, based on time-frame.
- Store Research for $300 per bill, available for immediate download here.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this assistance. Contact us if you have any questions or wish to place an order for custom research or tracing.