Case law

Haselrig v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 2025

Moreover, Loggins, an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, does not purport to establish a bright-line rule fixing any particular length of time as too long to qualify as close temporal proximity under FEHA. … “Unlike qualified privileges, it is not negated by malice or other personal motivation . . . .

Fonseca v. County of Santa Clara

263 Cal. App. 2d 257 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1968

of action that did not exist prior to the effective date of this act but which is created by the retroactive application of this act shall be deemed to be subject to and to have been subject to: (1) Any claims procedure established … In fact, the 1963 legislation clearly evinces a contrary purpose, 3 and no policy or principle requires a contrary holding. The judgment is affirmed. Molinari, P. J., and Elkington, J., concurred.

People v. Welch

89 Cal. App. 18 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1928

We can hardly conceive of a situation where this rule would be more clearly applicable than in the instant case. … The last point urged by appellants is that the evidence is insufficient to establish a violation by appellants of section 2 of Act 1970 of the Statutes of 1923 (Stats. 1923, p. 695).

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.

Dearth v. Great Republic Life Insurance

9 Cal. App. 4th 1256 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1992

Rather what the insurance agent did occurred before the plan was established and involved steering plaintiffs to that plan and away from insurance which may have provided them the coverage they needed. … Conversely, to exempt Nagler from his ordinary responsibilities to tell the truth when selling insurance policies merely because the policy involved may become structured to qualify as an “employee benefit plan” in no way

California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Board

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2006

The work will clearly alter existing drainage patterns and elevations of the land. It will change the nature of the land from level fields to wetlands. … “[I]t cannot be assumed that activities intended to protect or preserve the environment are immune from environmental review. [Citations.]”

N v. Heathorn, Inc. v. County of San Mateo

25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2005

The statutory provisions cited in Heathorn’s complaint clearly establish a statutory duty upon a public body, such as the County, to secure a payment bond under the circumstances alleged in Heathorn’s complaint. … However, “[u]nder the principle of sovereign immunity, mechanics’ liens may not be asserted on government projects. . . . The only remedies available on public works are stop notices (Civ.

Jablonski v. Royal Globe Insurance

204 Cal. App. 3d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1988

Thus, if the insurer is to be invested with the employer’s immunity under section 3601, that immunity is to be derived from sections 3850 and 3852. … But the court went on to hold that the worker had set forth sufficient facts to “establish another intentional tort which exceeds the bounds of acceptable investigative practice—that of trespass.

Beck v. County of Santa Clara

204 Cal. App. 3d 789 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1988

(The changes were established in Napa County in 1975, and in Madera County in 1977, ultimately effective Nov. 1, 1978.) … Presumably that authority carries with it authority to hire persons qualified to perform those functions.

Tower Lane Properties v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 2015

In considering a qualified immunity analysis, a court must determine: (1) whether the alleged facts made out a violation of a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time … Therefore, no action taken by LoGrande, Tokunaga, or Duran could have violated a “clearly established constitutional right.” The city officials were thus entitled to qualified immunity. E.

O'Brien v. Olson

42 Cal. App. 2d 449 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 1941

Each of the petitioners was appointed and qualified, for the term of ten years, as a member of the State Board of Prison Directors. … The doctrine announced in the preceding quotation is well established.

Royster v. Cushman

213 Cal. App. 3d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 1989

However, in this case, appellant has made no attempt to “learn on the job” and as a result the interests of the students clearly take precedence. … “In any district in which appointments are made from eligible lists established by examination, special eligible lists shall be established at the end of each school year which consist of the names of those employees who

Empire Vintage Co. v. Collins

40 Cal. App. 2d 612 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1940

Johnson is, and at all times hereinafter mentioned was, the State Treasurer for the State of California, duly appointed and qualified as such. "IV. … In doing so, it was clearly authorized by the provisions of the statute (sees. 40-44). That its findings were not conclusive is true.

Forest Lawn Memorial Park Ass'n v. State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors

134 Cal. App. 73 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1933

Newton Howell, the duly elected, qualified and acting president of petitioner. … Cas. 13], where the court in passing upon the con *80 stitutionality of the Dental Law held such a provision was not unconstitutional as conferring special privileges and immunities upon certain practitioners, upon the theory

People v. Velasquez

192 Cal. App. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1987

is not clearly established, the privilege is to be strictly construed. … However, on its facts, Benge is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.

People v. Kershaw

147 Cal. App. 3d 750 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1983

The factors motivating these informants include offers of immunity or sentence reduction, money payments, revenge or the hope of eliminating criminal competition. … We also conclude that because of the anonymity of the informer he or she did not qualify as a full-fledged citizen informant.

In Re Marriage of Williams

163 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1985

In support of this contention, appellant relies upon the provisions of the trust agreement establishing the fund, which in turn are based upon federal law. … The same subsection of the Act defines a "qualified domestic relations order."

Altizer v. Coachella Valley Conservation Com.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2023

(3) hazardous recreational immunity under section 831.7. … Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1072, fn. 10.) 5 cannot be established or there is a complete defense to that cause of action.

Bush v. Nye

6 Cal. App. 298 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1907

It is further argued that so much of the act under consideration as attempted to fix a determinate term for the newly created office is unconstitutional, because the constitution itself has established all the various terms … the provisions of section 9 of article VI of the constitution, and that the legislature, by the creation of an additional judge of the superior court of Shasta county, and prescribing the provisional term thereof, acted clearly

Harvey v. Smith

147 Cal. App. 2d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1957

Fletcher is the duly qualified and acting executor thereof. The executor included the subject property in the inventory of the estate.” The last will and testament of Alice E. … distribution void because it does not conform to the provisions of the will; that the rule is well settled that once the decree of distribution becomes final it becomes the measure of the rights of the beneficiary and is immune