Case law

Lopez v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

40 Cal. 3d 780 · California Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1985

*Page 793 Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail." ( Ramos v. … Plaintiffs' complaint clearly meets the requirement of specific pleading with respect to the existence of a duty of care.

People v. Stewart

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2004

Again, the same might be said by many jurors who are properly qualified to sit on a death penalty jury. … 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.”

Cruz v. Briseno

93 Cal. Rptr. 2d 715 · California Supreme Court · Mar 23, 2000

Although plaintiffs argue that a triable issue exists as to whether defendant Briseno was in “immediate pursuit” of Ogbum, the facts alleged in this case clearly indicate that, by the time the accident occurred, Briseno was … Superior Court, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 702 [“Section 21056 and its companion, section 21055, only establish driving standards for emergency vehicles; they do not set rules for immunity.

Brown v. Pitchess

13 Cal. 3d 518 · California Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1975

The court concluded: “Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act clearly creates rights and imposes obligations different from any which would exist at common law in the absence of statute. … That an.inmate has been granted an opportunity to represent himself does not mean he is uniquely qualified to assist others.

Yarrow v. State of California

53 Cal. 2d 427 · California Supreme Court · Jan 22, 1960

The argument advanced by them that unless the trial judge meant to qualify and limit his grant of the new trial about 90 per cent of the contents of his order was a pure waste of time, is not impressive in the face of the … Had the Legislature intended to relieve highway employees from civil damages, as it did the operators of emergency vehicles, it manifestly would have clearly so provided.

Moore v. Conliffe

7 Cal. 4th 634 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1994

Indeed, until today, the court acknowledged that expansion of the immunities established by section 47 was, and should be, a legislative prerogative, and that statute, not common law, is the source of immunities in this state … The limited nature of the grant of immunity by a Legislature that was clearly aware of the importance of arbitration is indicative of legislative intent to restrict immunity in the arbitral arena.

People v. Masters

62 Cal. 4th 1019 · California Supreme Court · Feb 22, 2016

] available to testify; [3] the proffered testimony [is] clearly exculpatory; [4] the testimony [is] essential; and [5] there [are] no strong governmental interests which countervail against a grant of immunity.‖ (Quinn, … [W]e cannot conclude [the] testimony was clearly exculpatory.‖].)

Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc.

249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569 · California Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2019

Nothing in the statutory scheme prevents the defendant from introducing evidence establishing such reasons. … To conclude otherwise would effectively immunize claims of discrimination or retaliation from anti-SLAPP scrutiny, even though the statutory text establishes no such immunity.

People v. Ervin

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623 · California Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The court initially set a goal of 129 death-qualified prospective jurors before final random selection and peremptory challenges. … In any event, the point is too speculative to establish prejudice arising from counsel’s omission. 2.

Walker v. Superior Court

47 Cal. 3d 112 · California Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1988

The court in Kleid considered an exemption from a compulsory immunization statute reserved for “members of a nationally recognized and established church or religious denomination.” (Kl eid v. … The plaintiff challenged the statute as violative of the establishment clause because it denied its exemption to those who objected to immunization on “ ‘non-religious grounds.’ ” {Id. at p. 904.)

People v. Hunter

49 Cal. 3d 957 · California Supreme Court · Dec 7, 1989

for judicial use of this immunity power must be clearly limited; . . . the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory; the testimony must be essential; and there must be no strong governmental interests which countervail … It was well established that defendant had been abused by his father.

Brown v. Superior Court

15 Cal. 3d 52 · California Supreme Court · Aug 21, 1975

Public Resources Code section. 27222 declares that a person who qualifies for membership on a regional commission because he holds some local office, such as a supervisor or councilman, ceases to be a member of the commission … The fact that the act provided for automatic removal of commissioners who no longer fulfil the statutory requisites for membership has little bearing on the question whether qualified commissioners are immune from removal

Klein v. United States

50 Cal. 4th 68 · California Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2010

This provision establishes a limitation on, or exception to, the various section 846 immunities. … Thus, section 846’s fourth paragraph does not establish a limitation or exception for the landowner’s own willful or malicious conduct.

Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners

7 Cal. 3d 288 · California Supreme Court · May 24, 1972

But its relevance must be clearly understood: an alien can take this oath, both legally and as a matter of fact. … Such a person would obviously not be clothed with the formal immunity of an accredited diplomat, and would be no less liable to discipline or disbarment than any citizen lawyer. 4.

Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District

36 Cal. 3d 799 · California Supreme Court · Sep 6, 1984

“Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by wilful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v. … Immunity Having thus established that the defendants owed plaintiff a duty of care, we turn to the question of immunity. (See Davidson v. City of Westminster, supra, at pp. 201-202.)

People v. Seijas

30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 493 · California Supreme Court · Jul 7, 2005

The court may require the witness “to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ ” (Ibid.) … Under these circumstances, it does not clearly appear that the testimony could not possibly tend to incriminate Jonathan. (Evid. Code, § 404.)

Ramos v. County of Madera

4 Cal. 3d 685 · California Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1971

It is clear that the hearing scheme established by the Legislature does not contemplate class actions. … Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.

Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol

110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 528 · California Supreme Court · Aug 16, 2001

As we shall explain, the governing precedents clearly establish that a law enforcement officer, in directing a traffic violator to stop in a particular location, has a legal duty to use reasonable care for the safety of the … Finally, plaintiffs maintained that the governing precedents interpreting the statutory immunity provisions relied upon by defendants established that the immunity afforded by each of those statutes did not apply to the conduct

People v. Salazar

315 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295 · California Supreme Court · Nov 20, 2023

In contrast, the current section 1170 does just the opposite: In cases where the defendant can establish certain qualifying attributes, such as psychological, physical, or childhood trauma that contributed to the offense, … In sum, in Gutierrez, we established that when a court has not exercised its informed discretion, remand is the default “unless the record ‘clearly indicate[s]’ that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion

Peatros v. BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA

91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 659 · California Supreme Court · Jan 10, 2000

To the same end, it bestows qualified immunity from liability arising from its exercise, allowing only specified relief, with limits and/or bars against compensatory and/or punitive damages. … But, in other part, it would further qualify the immunity so as to allow all relief generally available, including unlimited compensatory and punitive damages.