Case law

Schaeffer v. Public Employees' Retirement System

202 Cal. App. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1988

Accordingly, in order for appellant to establish his entitlement to safety member status he must establish that his duties clearly came within the scope of active law enforcement and this burden cannot be met by evidence … Labor Code section 4850 applies to employees of a sheriff’s department except those whose duties do not clearly fall within the scope of active law enforcement.

Garretson v. Post

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 230 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2007

Defendant argues her alleged activity qualifies as protected speech under subdivision (e)(1) and (2) of section 425.16. … In this case, defendant has failed to establish that she was engaged in constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity.

Farmer v. Behmer

9 Cal. App. 773 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1909

That the premises of defendant were erected and used continuously, from August, 1893, except for a short time, up to the date of the trial, October 29, 1907, for the purposes found by the court is clearly proved, and that … The case here is much stronger, for the immunity claimed under the license is to maintain what is a public nuisance per se, and protection is sought for conduct made a crime by statute. 7.

People v. Williams

97 Cal. App. 3d 382 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1979

Evidence adduced before the grand jury established that Wood sold the file or a photo-copy of the file to David H. Cheren and George S. Goldberg, who are attorneys. … The indictment under scrutiny clearly alleges that defendants conspired to conceal the stolen Hartford file and that such conspiracy continued until on or about February 4, 1975.

Walter v. Adams

110 Cal. App. 2d 484 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1952

electors of the district at the first general state election held following the expiration of 90 days and qualify.” … In support thereof he argues that to grant the writ at this time would be to hold that eligibility must be established prior to the election—a conclusion contrary to the rule of this state.

Hiatt v. City of Berkeley

130 Cal. App. 3d 298 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1982

AAP next provided that the employment lists be restricted to three general categories (“Outstanding,” “Well Qualified,” and “Qualified”), and that the names of the candidates in *306 each qualifying category be listed in … Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.” (Italics added.) 6 The pertinent findings read as follows: “32.

Wiley v. Kern High School District CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2024

Finally, government employees are subject to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … Finally, Wiley’s claim fails because Whiting (and any other officer still implicated) is entitled to qualified immunity.

People v. Sun

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 696 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2007

We review rulings on motions brought under section 1538.5 by the standard established in People v. … To the contrary, we encourage it consistent with the law established for both those jurisdictions.

Abbey v. Board of Directors

58 Cal. App. 757 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 19, 1922

From a consideration of the whole act, it clearly appears that it was the intent to authorize provision for the election of directors at large in districts of three divisions as well as in those of five. … Clearly, under section 28 as so amended, the directors of a district of five divisions were required, upon presentation of the petition provided for, to order the election of directors at large.

Mackey v. Bd. of Trustees of the Cal. State University

California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2019

To avoid this result, plaintiffs argue CSUSM's receipt of federal funds under title VI waives its sovereign immunity. (See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7(a)(1) [no Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of title VI].) … CSUSM's college athletics qualify as a federally funded "program or activity." (Id., § 2000d–4a.)

Orlando v. Berkeley

220 Cal. App. 2d 224 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1963

It clearly cannot be said as a matter of law that termites and damp rot are such conditions. … Under such circumstances, it clearly cannot be said that respondents were successful in establishing every element necessary to sustain a judgment in their favor. Judgment reversed. Agee, J., concurred.

People v. Samuels

147 Cal. App. 3d 1108 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 1983

As to the absent defense witnesses, defense counsel made absolutely no showing on any of the established prerequisite conditions for the granting of a continuance on such ground, i.e., (1) a particular obtainable witness, … While those cases specifically addressed the need to immunize voluntary testimony of defense witnesses produced at a revocation hearing, we believe that the policy and rationale behind those cases extends as well to immunize

Greene v. Bank of America

216 Cal. App. 4th 454 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2013

The immunity provisions of the Act must be viewed in the context of the Act and, no matter how broadly they apply to "disclosures" concerning financial transactions, they cannot be read to immunize any report to law enforcement … That would establish malice. Along the same lines, defendants argue that plaintiff cannot show lack of probable cause, another of the elements of malicious prosecution.

Reclusado v. Mangum

228 Cal. App. 2d 8 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1964

Sloss (1952), 38 Cal.2d 399 [ 240 P.2d 575 ], is enlightening upon this issue: the case holds that the guest statute immunizes the ‘ “person legally liable for the conduct of such driver” ’ from a vicarious liability to the … The phrase “person legally liable” for the driver’s conduct is clearly intended to cover cases in which the owner is vicariously liable for the driver’s conduct because of the relationship of the parties, as principal-agent

Pacific Gas and Elec. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2017

There is no dispute that PG&E’s license under its utility tariff constitutes an “interest” in San Mateo County Memorial Park that qualifies for protection under this paragraph. … The statute “clearly” applies to “private owners of easements and of revocable licenses.” (Hubbard, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 197.)

Trustees of the Cal. State Univ. v. Public Emp. Relations Bd.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2026

Because PERB’s construction of the HEERA is within its field of expertise, courts follow PERB’s interpretation unless it is clearly erroneous (Boling, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 911–912; County of Sonoma v. … or proof of immunization.” 27 cross-examined Dr.

Vilches v. Leao

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2023

Plaintiff opposed defendant’s motion, asserting that the absence of bad faith does not immunize a therapist’s determination from judicial review. … Romeo (1982) 457 U.S. 307, 322–323 [in the context of a due process challenge to involuntary institutional commitment, commenting that “there certainly is no reason to think judges or juries are better qualified than appropriate

Novick v. City of Los Angeles

148 Cal. App. 3d 325 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1983

It was alleged by petitioner’s representative that a California immunity statute which granted immunity to the parole board members for their decision to release the prisoner was so construed that it violated the due process … Here, there were apparently no damages resultant at the time of the illegal search and *334 seizure. 10 Bivens clearly shows that the plaintiff there, if found capable of demonstrating on retrial an injury consequent upon

Moreno v. Sanchez

131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 2003

A Written Contract for Home Inspection Services Does Not Immunize a Home Inspector from Tort Liability. … They should also be granted leave to amend to clearly state a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 7196.

Hogan v. Superior Court

74 Cal. App. 704 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1925

The decision in the Estate of Parsell, supra, cited and relied upon by petitioner, does not establish any different rule. … The judgment in question manifestly belongs to that middle class, and therefore is immune from collateral attach.