Case law

People v. King

66 Cal. 2d 633 · California Supreme Court · May 5, 1967

To hold otherwise would permit the commissioner to do by indirection that which the law clearly forbids him to do directly. … These immunity provisions qualify and control the commissioner’s subpoena power whenever or however it is exercised, irrespective of section nomenclature or numbering. 7 The pertinent portion o£ section 9410, as it does now

Thomas v. City of Richmond

9 Cal. 4th 1154 · California Supreme Court · May 1, 1995

“The immunity granted in section 845.8, subdivision (b), is absolute in terms and must be given effect ‘unless it clearly appears that the language used is contrary to what, beyond question, was the intent of the Legislature … We found it significant that, while the section 845.8 immunity was unqualified, numerous other immunity provisions were qualified.

Russian Hill Improvement Ass'n v. Board of Permit Appeals

66 Cal. 2d 34 · California Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1967

desired immunity. *40 To eliminate the uncertainty and waste inherent in these rules, a number of municipalities enacted ordinances which predicated immunity from permit revocation upon some clearly defined action of a municipal … Defendants have suggested no reason, historical or otherwise, to suppose that section 150 contemplated a departure from this established rule.

Slaughter v. Friedman

32 Cal. 3d 149 · California Supreme Court · Aug 23, 1982

A libel “per quod,” on the other hand, *154 requires that the injurious character or effect be established by allegation and proof. … Weissbein, supra, 24 Cal.3d 55, 61 , the intent of § 43.8 seems to have been to provide only a qualified immunity, not previously available, for the communications specified in that section.)

Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

California Supreme Court · Apr 27, 2023

The City argued that, considered together, its evidence established as a matter of law that it was entitled to judgment based on the defense of design immunity. … Thus, under Cameron, despite the inapplicability of design immunity, a plaintiff alleging failure to warn of a dangerous traffic condition must nonetheless overcome signage immunity by establishing the accident-causing condition

Kilgore v. Younger

30 Cal. 3d 770 · California Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1982

Based on public policy considerations, the court concluded that qualified immunity would be sufficient to protect officials invested with discretionary powers. [8] "... … [C]ases have recognized that it is not unfair to hold liable the official who knows or should know he is acting outside the law, and that insisting on an awareness of clearly established constitutional limits will not unduly

Ex Parte Whitley

144 Cal. 167 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1904

The profession and practice are open to every citizen of the United States who is qualified, and who can produce evidence of the same. … The act does not grant privileges or immunities to any citizen or “class of citizens, either within or without the state It only establishes a rule of evidence by which qualificatior to practice medicine and surgery is to

Hampton v. County of San Diego

62 Cal. 4th 340 · California Supreme Court · Dec 10, 2015

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that the County had established the defense of design immunity for the purpose of summary judgment. … We said these items of evidence clearly were “sufficient to establish the initial applicability of an immunity under section 830.6.” (Ibid.)

State of California v. Superior Court

12 Cal. 3d 237 · California Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1974

It seems clear that sections 818.4 and 821.2 of the Government Code were intended by the Legislature to qualify section 1095 of the Code of Civil Procedure. … The opinion does not discuss the immunity provisions of the Government Code, which were not enacted until several years thereafter.

Hackethal v. Weissbein

24 Cal. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Apr 12, 1979

The intent seems to have been (1) to provide immunity to bodies not previously protected, and (2) to provide only a qualified immunity for communications made to a variety of medical groups. … A host of cases, of course, unquestionably establish that any such interpretation of section 47, subdivision 2 is clearly untenable. (See, e.g., Imig v. Ferrar (1977) 70 Cal. App.3d 48, 55-57 [ 138 Cal.

Cornette v. Department of Transportation

109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1 · California Supreme Court · Jul 12, 2001

While Section 830.6 Reserves the Third Element of Design Immunity for the Court’s Determination, It Does Not So Reserve the Three Elements of Loss of Design Immunity Section 830.6 clearly makes the resolution of the third … To the contrary, the state could have retained its immunity by correcting or alleviating the hazard, and the Baldwin court clearly indicated the sort of measure that would have corrected the hazard.

Haggis v. City of Los Angeles

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 327 · California Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2000

County of Fresno (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 1238, 1243-1244 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 879 ] [although statute providing for agency legal action to enforce building standards included the word “shall” at points, at other points it clearly … Notice of the contents, though not *502 the truth, of the geological reports might be appropriate to fill out or qualify allegations regarding those reports in the complaint (see Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v.

Gerth v. Dominguez

1 Cal. 2d 239 · California Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1934

this broad construction: either a right of recall limited to the electors resident in Los Angeles, an unwarranted and no doubt an unconstitutional discrimination against residents of the district outside the city; or an immunity … including both qualified electors of the city and qualified electors of the territory in the district, but outside the boundaries of the city; and to count also in favor of said recall the names of all electors otherwise

Leon v. County of Riverside

California Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2023

Code, § 820.4 [qualified immunity for execution or enforcement of laws with “due care”]; id., § 820.6 [qualified immunity for actions under apparent authority of unconstitutional, invalid, or inapplicable enactments, taken … Finally, the County argues that even if Sullivan establishes section 821.6 immunity extends only to tortious prosecution claims, “the doctrine of stare decisis should not be mechanically applied,” and this court should reconsider

Miller v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District

8 Cal. 3d 689 · California Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1973

To determine that a .witness qualifies as an expert the judge must ascertain “if he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony … As we have seen, the witness, Stiver, was never properly qualified as an expert. Mr.

State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Superior Court of Orange Cty.

103 Cal. Rptr. 2d 662 · California Supreme Court · Feb 1, 2001

SCDF is a public enterprise fund, established by law as a competitive insurance carrier. (1 Hanna, Cal. … Even if they were applicable, a review of these statutes indicates that the reporting obligation is now clearly referenced in both articles. (See §§ 11734, subd.

Cassista v. Community Foods, Inc.

5 Cal. 4th 1050 · California Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1993

Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1242 [ 261 Cal.Rptr. 197 ] [acquired immune deficiency syndrome is the result of a virus affecting the human immune system and therefore constitutes a physical handicap … Furthermore, she was clearly on notice of the potential importance of such evidence through the motions of defendants.

Rubin v. Green

4 Cal. 4th 1187 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1993

They were thus within the scope of the privilege and immune from tort liability. … Because it is made unlawful by Business and Professions Code sections 6152 and 6153, plaintiff argues, attorney solicitation qualifies as a species of unfair competition.

Ornelas v. Randolph

4 Cal. 4th 1095 · California Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1993

Consolidated Rock Products Co. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 681, 688 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 522 ].) 3 Thus, the Legislature has established two elements as a precondition to immunity: (1) the defendant must be the owner of an “estate or … They have held, in addition to the requisite interest in land and recreational purpose, that the property in question must also be “suitable” for a recreational pursuit in order to qualify for the statutory immunity.

Ex parte Knowles

5 Cal. 300 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1855

Else why was the term “ uniform ” made to qualify “ rule ? … To answer this, we must turn to the Act of Congress of 1802, and be governed by the rule there established.