Case law

Ross v. Campbell Union School District

70 Cal. App. 3d 113 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1977

It follows that these county superintendents, being governmental entities under the facts here presented, are not immune to liability for acts or omissions of others (Gov. Code, § 820.8). … The tri-county agreement clearly is one under which each of the several defendants undertook to perform a “function, service or act with or for” other public entities (Gov. Code, § 895).

Wiley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

220 Cal. App. 3d 177 · California Court of Appeal · May 10, 1990

The immunity in Civil Code section 1714.7 clearly applies when the train is moving. 7 Apart from the fact *192 that the court in Rivera was not intending to apply Civil Code section 1714.7 to a case where a person climbs … The complaint clearly states that the sole plaintiff is Kevin Wiley.

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.

People v. Davis

50 Cal. App. 4th 168 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1996

(c)), which qualified as a strike (§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)). Davis was sentenced to state prison for the aggregate term of 125 years to life. … Pearsall (Cal.App.), error was not found because the record affirmatively established that the sentencing court would not strike the prior convictions under any circumstances. (At pp. 604-606.)

Martin v. Graves CA2/1

California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2016

Martin disputes the Attorney General established he qualifies as a vexatious litigant. We affirm. … Martin filed an opposition to the motion, arguing the Attorney General did not demonstrate he qualifies as a vexatious litigant under section 391 because the Attorney General did not establish the requisite number of qualifying

DeBottari v. City Council

171 Cal. App. 3d 1204 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 6, 1985

Plaintiff Louis A. deBottari, a resident and qualified voter of Nor-co, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Superior Court of Riverside County to command the defendant either to repeal the ordinances or place the … In sum, we conclude that the referendum, if successful, would enact a clearly invalid zoning ordinance.

Brower v. Arnstein

126 Cal. App. 291 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1932

This low rate of speed is clearly and reasonably accounted for by the necessity of starting the motorcycle in low gear and the consequential slowness of what is colloquially termed its “pick-up”. … negligence as charged in his pleading, or in the event he did so establish such negligence, how in such event the verdict should then go if contributory negligence was or was not established.

Galicia v. Spencer CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 2015

The qualified immunity under section 1983 extends to private individuals retained by the government to carry out its work. [Citation.] The qualified immunity extends to private physicians. [Citation.] … Defendants maintain that in this case, qualified immunity applies because at the time of the incident, the law was not clearly established so that it would have been clear to a reasonable physician that the particular conduct

Crespin v. Kizer

226 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1990

PRU-COL status, and (2) in the unlikely event that illegal aliens needing long-term care or kidney dialysis do not qualify as PRUCOL, and the kidney *511 dialysis did not qualify as “an emergency medical condition,” the … Federal financial participation would be available to the extent that aliens needing long-term care or renal dialysis could qualify as PRUCOL, but whether they did so qualify was subject to the decision of the INS.

People v. London

228 Cal. App. 4th 544 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2014

The CUA’s limited immunity from state criminal prosecution for unlawful marijuana possession and cultivation applies solely to qualified patients and their primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the patient … who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient of the primary

County of San Mateo v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2017

immunity.” … site, which was unimproved” and there was no evidence “link[ing] the improvements, casually or otherwise, with the accident”]; see also Mercer, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d at p. 165 [Buchanan illustrates the principle “that to qualify

Eble v. Peluso

80 Cal. App. 2d 154 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 1947

The first objection that there was no proper foundation laid is clearly without merit for the reason that the question was in itself asked for the purpose of laying a foundation as to the witness’ qualifications as an expert … the trial court before permitting the witness to answer a hypothetical question should rule whether in its opinion the witness has qualified as an expert.

Shariapanahi v. City of Los Angeles CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2026

“[D]esign immunity requires that a public entity establish three elements: ‘(1) a causal relationship between the plan or design and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the 10 … The matters the court judicially noticed were clearly relevant to this issue and the parties’ contentions thereto.

Wilson v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

46 Cal. App. 4th 1213 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 27, 1996

Section 1858 of the Insurance Code establishes an administrative scheme for complaints to be filed with the Insurance Commissioner. … The statutes establishing the FEHC and the record here provide no indication that the FEHC has any expertise or experience with actuarial risks.

Tindall v. County of Nevada CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 30, 2025

(See Allyson, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 1313 [§ 815’s “language is plain,” “unambiguous,” and “clearly intended to ensure that applicable immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act will prevail over its liability provisions … looking to the Vehicle Code: “Regardless of the fact that a bicycle path may come under the broad brush of being part of the streets and highway system in general,” the type of path the bicyclist was riding on “d[id] not qualify

Garvai v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

216 Cal. App. 2d 374 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 1963

Board shall refuse to grant or may suspend or revoke a license to practice chiropractic upon any of certain specified grounds, one of which is “the practice of chiropractic under a false or assumed name. ’ ’ It is well established … Read in their context, however, clearly they can be said to indicate that the presentation of the ad will result in a discount of one kind or another.

Ames v. City of Hermosa Beach

16 Cal. App. 3d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1971

Such an ordinance is clearly an interference with the civil rights guaranteed by Civil Code sections 51 and 52. … It violates no one’s privileges and immunities. We conclude as to count I that section 18-14 is not on its face unconstitutional.

Legg v. Ford

185 Cal. App. 2d 534 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 20, 1960

By their demurrer, the county defendants have interposed the legal defense of sovereign immunity. … There is no statute waiving immunity for the alleged tort. Therefore they are immune from civil liability and no cause of action can be stated.

People v. Misquez

152 Cal. App. 2d 471 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1957

It was established that death occurred at 6 :13 that evening. Dr. Frederick J. Newbarr, the Los Angeles County Coroner’s chief autopsy surgeon, qualified as an expert witness. … These admissions were clearly relevant in proving defendant’s disposition and intent.

People v. Archer

179 Cal. App. 4th 298 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2009

The court further noted that primary caregiver status "requires an existing, established relationship. … [However,] [w]hat is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale." ( Id. at p. 284