Case law

Iverson v. Muroc Unified School District

32 Cal. App. 4th 218 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1995

In this case we address the question whether Government Code section 831.7, 1 which provides qualified immunity to public entities and public employees for injuries sustained by a person during “hazardous recreational activity … 846, sought to give a public entity and its employees specific qualified immunity from *224 liability for injuries due to defined “hazardous recreational activity” on public property.

People v. Gibson

165 Cal. App. 2d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1958

The question was apparently asked in an effort to prove that the statements made by Gibson to the investigating officers were elicited by means of promises of immunity. … Christensen’s apartment, the fingerprint evidence clearly established Gibson’s presence at the scene. The fact that Mrs.

Alvarez v. State of California

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 719 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1999

if the State established initial immunity, changed conditions defeated design immunity. … Loss of Design Immunity Early cases construing section 830.6 held that design immunity would apply perpetually even though changed circumstances clearly revealed the defects of the plan.

Baker v. Sudo

194 Cal. App. 3d 936 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1987

Section 25602.1 merely established a narrow exception to the immunity provided for in section 25602. Senate Bill No. 1053 did not repeal the immunity. … The Cory court clearly invited the Legislature to take corrective action back then: “. . .

Soliz v. Williams

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1999

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.’ [Citation.]” … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-819 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity). [¶] Rather, our cases make clear that the immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances.

Pacific Air Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court

231 Cal. App. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1965

Every statement in the document before us is declared “under penalty of perjury,” and clearly is vouched for by declarant. … They seek to expand this rule to require negation of contract venue, even when the complaint clearly states a cause of action in tort alone.

Allen v. San Diego Convention Center Corp., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2022

Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence, nonstate actors are entitled to immunity where the challenged restraint is one “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy” and “actively supervised by the State … were subject to oversight by the immune public districts.

Kachlon v. Markowitz

168 Cal. App. 4th 316 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2008

Established law is to the contrary. … Moreover, we are unable to conclude that providing qualified immunity to beneficiaries who act as trustees results in an absurdity. (Unzueta v.

Stecks v. Young

38 Cal. App. 4th 365 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1995

Section 11172, subdivision (a) establishes immunity. It “cloaks mandated reporters with immunity from civil and criminal liability for making any report ‘required or authorized’ by the Act.” (Ferraro v. … Where such reports turn out to be false, the Legislature may deem it appropriate to apply qualified immunity and to permit recovery where the wrongfully accused person can establish that the report was known to be false or

Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.

221 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2013

To rule otherwise is to rule that there is a complete immunity to FEHA.” … The conduct therefore qualifies as a form of protected activity.

Towery v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. … under 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‗clearly established‘ constitutional right.‖ (Venegas II, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1241–1242, quoting Saucier v.

City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2007

[f] California courts do not enforce the federal marijuana possession laws when defendants prosecuted for marijuana possession have a qualified immunity under [the CUA]. … But Kha is clearly not a criminal defendant with respect to the subject marijuana.

Towery v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. … 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‗clearly established‘ constitutional right.‖ (Venegas II, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1241–1242, quoting Saucier v.

Kilroy v. State

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2004

On the motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that Paulus is entitled to qualified immunity on the title 42 United States Code section 1983 claim and both defendants are entitled to immunity in connection with the … The issue decided in the federal proceeding (whether evidence must be suppressed because of deliberate and material omissions) is not identical to the issue to be decided here (whether Paulus is entitled to qualified immunity

Varshock v. Department of Forestry

194 Cal. App. 4th 635 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2011

Superior *649 Court, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 842 .) 8 The Commission therefore prefaced the proposed immunity “for any injury caused in fighting fires” with the qualifier “except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with … Hence, whether CAL-FIRE had an initial burden both to establish immunity under section 850.4 and to negate liability under the Vehicle Code section 17001 exception in order to shift the burden to the Varshocks to establish

Lucas v. County of Los Angeles

47 Cal. App. 4th 277 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1996

We determine further that the trial court erred in ruling that the federal court’s finding of qualified immunity in the civil rights action was res judicata on the issue of immunity in Government Code section 845.6 in the … The trial court overruled that part of the demurrer based upon the doctrine of res judicata, stating that “the federal court was determining whether an affirmative defense of qualified immunity had been established.

Bradford v. State of California

36 Cal. App. 3d 16 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1973

Code, § 820 et seq.).3 * 5 Section 815 states that there is no entity liability, unless it is established by statute. … It then points to the entity immunity for misrepresentation stated in section 818.8. Out of the many possible answers to this suggestion we mention only two: 1. The allegation is clearly surplusage.

Littlefield v. Cty. of Humboldt

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2013

Strasburg (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1052 . . . states: „the status of [a] qualified patient does not confer an immunity from arrest. … “[T]he status of qualified patient does not confer an immunity from arrest.

People Ex Rel. Lungren v. Peron

59 Cal. App. 4th 1383 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1997

Respondents, operating a commercial enterprise selling marijuana to any qualified public purchaser, do not qualify as “ ‘primary caregiver[s]’ ” of each such purchaser under section 11362.5(e) by simply obtaining from the … Respondents do not consistently assume responsibility for the health or safety of their customers qualified for the medicinal use of marijuana, and hence do not qualify as their primary caretakers as contemplated by section

Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2007

In opposition to the assertion of immunity, plaintiff conceded that Hawkins “is the type of facility set forth in the immunity statute.” 7 However, plaintiff *297 asserted that the exception to immunity set forth in Government … This was clearly set forth in the Federal Register, when comments were solicited on JCAHO’s application to be considered an accreditation organization.