Case law

Maldonado v. Superior Court

53 Cal. 4th 1112 · California Supreme Court · Apr 23, 2012

The issue in Chavez was whether, in the civil suit, the officer could assert the defense of *1128 qualified immunity for discretionary official actions taken in good faith that “[do] not violate clearly established statutory … Finding that the qualified immunity was available, six members of the Chavez court agreed that a “core” Fifth Amendment violation is completed, not merely by official extraction of self-incriminatory answers from one who

Imperial Water Co. v. Board of Supervisors

162 Cal. 14 · California Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1912

There is no merit in the claim that there were not a sufficient number of qualified petitioners. … They comprise a very small proportion of the district as finally established.

Halo Sales Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco

6 Cal. 3d 164 · California Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1971

Maryland, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 419 [ 6 L.Ed. 678 ], the Supreme Court of the United States stated that things imported are imports entitled to constitutional immunity from state and local taxation and that this import immunity … Defendant filed no declaration in opposition, and the facts set forth in plaintiff’s declaration may therefore be taken as established.

Dickey v. Gibson

113 Cal. 26 · California Supreme Court · May 26, 1896

The limitations and immunities which accompanied the enjoyment of the property under such title, modified, not the title, but its enjoyment, and were only such as the statute imposed. … Save as to these limitations and immunities, the homestead ceased to exist.

Dicon Fiberoptics, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Board

53 Cal. 4th 1227 · California Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2012

During such an audit, the FTB may require the taxpayer to establish that the worker is a ―qualified employee‖ within the meaning of the statute. … During such an audit, the FTB may require the taxpayer to establish that the worker is a ―qualified employee‖ within the meaning of the statute.

L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2023

(Recommendation Relating to Sovereign Immunity, at p. 817; cf. Wells v. … As has been explained, the objective characteristics of these awards establish that they qualify as a form of punitive or exemplary damages for purposes of a section 818 analysis, and 10 In supplemental briefing filed

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Superior Court

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659 · California Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2006

The majority attempts to carve out an exception to the well-established rule that Indian tribes are immune from suit absent congressional authorization. … The majority does not claim that the United States Supreme Court is on the brink of abandoning this well-established doctrine of Indian sovereign immunity.

Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co.

24 Cal. 3d 458 · California Supreme Court · May 31, 1979

Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) 419 U.S. 345 [ 42 L.Ed.2d 477 , 95 S.Ct. 449 ], that decision is clearly distinguishable from the instant- case. … Tel. & Tel. opinion clearly established no such all-encompassing barrier.

Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara

45 Cal. 4th 704 · California Supreme Court · Feb 9, 2009

In light of the competing interests, it is well established that incriminating answers may be officially compelled, without violating the privilege, when the person to be examined receives immunity “coextensive *715 with … No reason appears to depart from the rule thus well established.

McGuire v. Baird

9 Cal. 2d 353 · California Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1937

The qualifications of a witness to testify in a malpractice case are definitely and clearly established by the decisions of the courts of this state. In the recent case of Rasmussen v. Shickle, 4 Cal. … Stevenson we think it was clearly his intention to stipulate that he was qualified to testify as to whether defendant’s treatment of plaintiff’s thumb was consistent with what other physicians in the locality in question

Hardy v. Stumpf

21 Cal. 3d 1 · California Supreme Court · Apr 13, 1978

“This Guideline does not require that the affected class member show that he would have been able to qualify in the absence of discrimination; it requires only that he show that he lost the opportunity to qualify.” … Rather, defendants ‘must come forward with *16 convincing facts establishing a fit between the qualification and the job.’ [Citation.]”

Williamson v. Superior Court

21 Cal. 3d 829 · California Supreme Court · Aug 14, 1978

Big Four argues that its withdrawal of Kurt as witness restored the immunity from discovery which Kurt’s report originally enjoyed. … The agreement at issue in the present case is clearly of such a nature.

Carlson v. Carlson

11 Cal. 3d 474 · California Supreme Court · May 13, 1974

Under the NSLI program, Congress has, as pointed out in Wissner , clearly emphasized an intent to limit death benefits to the designated beneficiary; but a similar intent was not expressed in the EGLI legislation. … VI, cl. 2) of the United States Constitution does not forbid the characterization of military retirement pay as community property in accordance with established principles of California law, nor preclude division of the

Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n

44 Cal. 3d 775 · California Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1988

Given the clearly delineated scope of CIGA’s role as set forth in the Guarantee Act, and the express restriction of CIGA’s liability in section 1063.12, subdivision (a), we conclude the Legislature did not intend CIGA to … tort immunity it currently enjoys or provide a scheme whereby tort damages may be recovered against CIGA.

Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 471 · California Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1999

(e)(1) and (2)), and that plaintiffs had not established a probability they would prevail on their claims (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1)). … Thus, the trial court impliedly found plaintiffs had not established a probability that they would prevail on their claim. (See Murray v.

People v. Lucas

12 Cal. 4th 415 · California Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1995

The one jurisdiction that recognizes such a power, we have observed, also recognizes that “ ‘the opportunities for judicial use of this immunity power must be clearly limited; ... the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory … Immunity will be denied if the proffered testimony is found to be ambiguous, not clearly exculpatory, cumulative or it is found to relate only to the credibility of the government’s witnesses.’” (People v.

People v. Badgett

10 Cal. 4th 330 · California Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1995

The Fifth Amendment establishes that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” … State, supra, 629 S.W.2d at p. 924), and “ ‘[i]f the conduct of such contracting parties does not show clearly an honorable abiding by such agreement before the eyes of their world of associates and contacts, then it should

People v. Camarella

54 Cal. 3d 592 · California Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1991

The trooper, asserting “qualified immunity,” claimed he was “shielded from damages liability because the act of applying for a warrant is per se objectively reasonable, provided that the officer believes that the facts alleged … It held, “the same standard of objective reasonableness that we applied in the context of a suppression hearing in Leon, supra, defines the qualified immunity accorded an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused

Shepherd v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 3d 107 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1976

It essentially establishes two different privileges—an absolute privilege if disclosure is forbidden by a federal or state statute (subd. … Clearly, no situation even remotely similar to that involved in Proctor & Gamble is here before us.

The Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court

230 Cal. Rptr. 3d 415 · California Supreme Court · Mar 22, 2018

Parents were largely immune from suit by their children, and colleges often enjoyed the same immunity, at least with respect to disciplining or regulating student conduct. … Psychotherapists’ duty to warn about patient threats is well established in California.