Case law

Bourland v. Hildreth

26 Cal. 161 · California Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1864

If they fail to do it fully and clearly, we may well doubt whether our conceptions have not gone beyond those of the author. … And it did not confer upon them any privileges or immunities which might not have equally belonged, “ upon the same terms,” to all citizens.

Hernandez v. City of Pomona

46 Cal. 4th 501 · California Supreme Court · May 28, 2009

The jury could not reach a verdict regarding Sanchez. 4 Sanchez then moved for judgment as a matter of law, based on qualified immunity. … (Mattson, supra, at p. 446 ; see Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 202 [officer immune unless “the law . . . put [him] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” i.e., “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that

City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court

62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2007

For example, see Civil Code section 2175 (granting qualified immunity for common carriers); Government Code section 831.7, subdivision (b) (qualified immunity of public entity or employee for hazardous recreational activity … on public property); Civil Code section 1714.2, subdivision (b) (qualified immunity of person rendering cardiopulmonary resuscitation at emergency scene); Business and Professions Code section 2727.5 (qualified immunity

Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority

68 Cal. 2d 599 · California Supreme Court · May 17, 1968

Although subdivision (b) of section 945.6 may have qualified the disability provision of section 352 as to prisoners 5 (Code Civ. … (Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity No. 2, January 1963, p. 1014.)

Gund v. County of Trinity

California Supreme Court · Aug 27, 2020

(See A Study Relating to Sovereign Immunity (Jan. 1963) 5 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. (1963) pp. 404, 452–453.) … Rep. (1963) p. 1505, fn. 4 (Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity); see id., at pp. 1505–1506.)

Ramona R. v. Superior Court

37 Cal. 3d 802 · California Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1985

It is true that section 940 does not on its face refer to use immunities. … However, Coleman clearly demonstrates that the use immunities there adopted are essential to California’s privilege against self-incrimination.

Kobzoff v. Los Angeles County Harbor/UCLA Medical Center

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 803 · California Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1998

Plaintiffs contend that we can distinguish this case from prior cases in which the trial court properly granted section 1038 motions because “it was undisputed the County was clearly factually responsible.” … In light of the County’s indisputable immunity, plaintiffs’ decision to pursue the action against it notwithstanding that immunity was unreasonable as a matter of law.

Creason v. Department of Health Services

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 489 · California Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1998

could not prevail if defendant was immune from suit. … The test therefore clearly fell within the “purpose of treatment” exception to immunity under Government Code section 855.6.

Thurston v. Clark

107 Cal. 285 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1895

on the eleventh day of May, 1891; that he was re-elected to the same office on the eighth day of November, 1892, and qualified on or about December 9, 1892. … The proceeding was one in rem, to establish the forfeiture of certain goods alleged to have been fraudulently imported without paying the duties thereon pursuant to an act of Congress.

People v. Tobias

106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2001

(a)), and it found this conviction qualified as a serious felony for purposes of the three strikes law. (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i).) … Nevertheless, a minor who has incestuous sexual intercourse with an adult is clearly a victim.

Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

45 Cal. 4th 1151 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 2009

The immunity clearly extends to easement owners, given the statute’s “ ‘exceptionally broad and singularly unambiguous’ definition of protected property ‘interests.’ ” (Miller v. … “The right to implied indemnity, while relatively recent in the law of California, is now well established. [Citations.]

People v. Cudjo

6 Cal. 4th 585 · California Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1993

But we also said that such immunity would be required only if the witness’s testimony was both clearly exculpatory and essential to an effective defense, and if no strong governmental interest weighed against the grant of … immunity.

County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

30 Cal. 3d 391 · California Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1981

The court found that he had done so, since the tryout test enabled the city to select better qualified employees. … However, the doctrine of charitable immunity has long been rejected in this state. (See 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Torts, § 159, pp. 2449-2450.)

Fox v. Kramer

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 497 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 2000

“Literally, section 1157 establishes an immunity from discovery but not an evidentiary privilege in the sense that medical staff records are excluded from evidence.” (Matchett v. … They assert that the Evidence Code section 1157, subdivision (a), immunizes peer review materials only from the pretrial formal exchange of information between parties to a civil action, and does not confer immunity from

Saala v. McFarland

63 Cal. 2d 124 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1965

3852, or whether the action is barred by the provision of section 3601 that workmen’s compensation is the exclusive remedy ‘‘ against any other employee of the employer acting within the scope of his employment. ’ ’ *127 Clearly … Defendant argues that the employee’s immunity from suit for all acts “within the scope of his employment” is of identical extent with the employer’s immunity from civil suit for injuries by an employee “arising out of and

In Re Critchlow

11 Cal. 2d 751 · California Supreme Court · Aug 9, 1938

The statute involved herein was clearly designed to meet the requirements stated in the authorities. … which such testimony may have reference or which it may tend to establish.

People v. Williams

75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 2008

to provide clearly exculpatory testimony. … Defendant also claims that his failure to request immunity for Dustin at trial should not bar consideration of his claim because, apart from the immunity issue, the prosecution failed to establish that it had employed reasonable

B.H. v. County of San Bernardino

62 Cal. 4th 168 · California Supreme Court · Nov 30, 2015

The term “child abuse or neglect” is clearly defined. (See §§ 11165.1, 11165.2, 11165.3, 11165.4, 11165.6.) … This timeframe is clearly insufficient to conduct and complete an investigation.

People v. Superior Court

14 Cal. 4th 968 · California Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1997

Thus, the Legislature clearly recognized the effect of sentencing pursuant to section 17 in the context of the three strikes statute and did not override that effect in its scheme determining whether a prior conviction qualifies … Moreover, defendant cites no authority immunizing a trial court’s discretionary decisionmaking from some level of review, however deferential.

In Re Demergian

48 Cal. 3d 284 · California Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1989

He argues that Business and Professions Code section 6079, subdivision (b), establishes an unconstitutional classification based on the amount of evidence a litigant wishes to present. … Thus, it cannot provide the basis for a Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities claim.