Case law

Delta Farms Reclamation District v. Superior Court

33 Cal. 3d 699 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1983

, hunters, campers, hikers and riders: if the road which leads to the recreational area is paved or happens to be a city street—though unpaved—the immunity does not apply and liability to hunters, campers et al. is clearly … Clearly this immunity applies principally to water sports. (E.g., Cardenas v. Turlock Irrigation Dist. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 352 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 69 ]; Hibbs v.

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.

Delaney v. Superior Court

50 Cal. 3d 785 · California Supreme Court · May 3, 1990

, establish mitigating circumstances relevant to the penalty determination. … Hayes and the Developing Qualified Privilege for Newsmen (1975) 26 Hastings L.J. 709 .)

State Department of State Hospitals v. Superior Court

61 Cal. 4th 339 · California Supreme Court · Jun 1, 2015

Sovereign Immunity and Duty Traditionally, the doctrine of sovereign immunity shielded states from both suit and liability. (Franchise Tax Bd. v. … were statutorily immunized.

Cameron v. State of California

7 Cal. 3d 318 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1972

Accordingly we must now examine the evidence to determine whether the state has met its burden of establishing as a matter of law all the elements of the defense of design immunity contained in section 830.6. … From the foregoing summary, it is clear that the state has presented facts sufficient to establish the initial applicability of an immunity under section 830.6.

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

17 Cal. 3d 425 · California Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1976

Subdivision (f) and the Evidence Code sections relied on by the majority are clearly inapposite. The provisions of the act are applicable here. … The Regents, therefore, are immune from liability only if all individual defendants are similarly immune. [21] We dismissed, in Johnson , the view that immunity continues to be necessary in order to insure that public employees

Hollman v. Warren

32 Cal. 2d 351 · California Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1948

“No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the Legislature; nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, he granted privileges or immunities which, upon the … If the right is doubtful, it must be first established in some other form of action. Mandamus will not lie to establish as well as enforce a claim of uncertain merit.” (S. F. Bowser & Co. v.

Bradley v. Clark

133 Cal. 196 · California Supreme Court · Jun 7, 1901

If, however, the promisee be not an offending person, while clearly the promisor is, then, as has been before said, the promisee has committed no offense, needs no immunity, and *209 has no privilege upon which to stand in … That if they would have tended to criminate him, then, as above set forth, he would have had immunity; and 2.

Azure Ltd. v. I-Flow Corp.

46 Cal. 4th 1323 · California Supreme Court · Jul 16, 2009

Subdivision (b) of that section qualifies this requirement by providing that if, in the interim between the report and delivery, the owner of the stock establishes its right to the property “to the satisfaction of the holder … “Securities listed on an established stock exchange shall be sold at the prevailing prices on that exchange.” (§ 1563, subd. (b).)

People v. Bray

105 Cal. 344 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1894

of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state … Guyott, 9 Mont. 46, the court there saying: “ The act under consideration is clearly within the police power of the territorial government, as defined by the courts, and is not inconsistent with the constitution and laws

Morris v. County of Marin

18 Cal. 3d 901 · California Supreme Court · Feb 3, 1977

Public Utilities Commission, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d 577 is perhaps the most clearly on point. … The county’s alleged wrongdoing in the instant case is, of course, clearly distinguishable from the matters encompassed by section 818.6.

Hoffmann v. Young 8/29/SC Case Details

California Supreme Court · Aug 29, 2022

If the Legislature wishes to limit the scope of the immunity it confers, or to add to the list of those who may make a qualifying invitation, it may do so. … In the meantime, however, the Legislature may wish to cut to the chase by amending section 846 to more clearly specify the limits of the immunity it confers. I.

Barrett v. Rosenthal

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2006

She claimed her statements were protected speech, and argued that plaintiffs could not establish a probability of prevailing because she was immune under section 230. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. … The Congressman clearly had civil liability in mind.

Johnson v. State of California

69 Cal. 2d 782 · California Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1968

These cited cases establish the principle that, although a basic policy decision (such as standards for parole) may be discretionary and hence warrant governmental immunity, subsequent ministerial actions in the implementation … The code sections establishing coextensive immunity do not, however, materially assist this court in determining the extent of that immunity in the first instance.

Harless v. Carter

42 Cal. 2d 352 · California Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1954

Discussing the various remedies available to a lienholder, the court in the Sipe case concluded that a suit for partition *355 would not be appropriate during such period because of the sovereign immunity rule, but, since … The statute clearly shows a legislative intent to allow the remedy of a sale by the treasurer until the later of the prescribed dates.

People v. Hamilton

62 Cal. 377 · California Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1882

That the insanity must be clearly established by satisfactory proof.” In answer to questions -propounded by the House of Lords *384 (Roscoe’s Cr. Ev. 953), Tindal, C. … We are convinced the phrase used in connection with the last proposition—“the insanity must be clearly established by satisfactory proof ”—could not have misled the jury.

Lundquist v. Reusser

7 Cal. 4th 1193 · California Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1994

Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 926, 936 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 82 ] [“ ‘The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is “actual malice” which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred … (See, e.g., Lee & Lindahl, 3 Modern Tort Law (rev. ed. 1988) Defamation, § 36.20, p. 250 [“The distinction between absolute and qualified privileges is essentially that an absolute privilege confers immunity regardless of

Phillipson v. Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System

3 Cal. 3d 32 · California Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1970

In Benson the court clearly differentiates August’s vested pension rights upon retirement from his “widow’s” contingent rights. … The adverse claims foreseen by section 161b thus clearly included claims based on the community property rights of an employee’s wife.

Nunn v. State of California

35 Cal. 3d 616 · California Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1984

It is well established that statutes must be given a reasonable construction that conforms to the apparent purpose and intention of the law makers (Clean Air Constituency v. … The Legislature clearly enacted Business and Professions Code section 7514.1 for the purpose of protecting the public from the danger of incompetent armed private security guards.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

62 Cal. 2d 839 · California Supreme Court · Jun 16, 1965

The action was not brought to trial until November 25, 1964, because of the 1961 moratorium established by Civil Code section 22.3 on causes of action against public agencies. … Potential plaintiffs who were injured before the Muskopf case was decided clearly could not have relied on that case. (Cf. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 25 Cal.2d 37 [ 152 P.2d 625 ] ; Norton v.