Case law

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.

McKay v. Longsworth

211 Cal. App. 3d 1592 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1989

“This was an important transaction requiring specialized skill, and defendant clearly was not qualified to undertake it. His conduct was not only negligent but was *1597 also highly improper. … Such conduct should be discouraged and not protected by immunity from civil liability, as would be the case if plaintiff, the only person who suffered a loss, were denied a right of action.”

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

Gill v. Mercy Hospital

199 Cal. App. 3d 889 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1988

In sum, the act establishes a national clearing house of medical peer review and malpractice information and provides qualified immunity from certain federal and state laws for peer review actions taken in good faith. … Although the memorandum is clearly hearsay evidence, it is not unreliable evidence.

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.

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.

Centinela Freeman v. Health Net

California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 2014

As explained in Ochs, Health and Safety Code section 1371.4 provides immunity unless a duty is otherwise established. (Ochs, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 794.) … The HMO’s argument is akin to suggesting that a driver’s license provides the driver immunity for negligently operating a vehicle or a handgun permit provides the gun owner immunity for negligently storing or discharging

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.

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

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.

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.

Auberry Union School District v. Rafferty

226 Cal. App. 2d 599 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 1964

Although the complaint, as above noted, did allege one concrete and actual point of disagreement between the parties and would therefore appear immune to attack by demurrer, respondents denied the existence of any such dispute … Even when tested by the standards set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 437c, respondents’ motion was clearly sufficient to establish the absence of any justiciable controversy as required by Code of Civil Procedure

People v. Rosaia

157 Cal. App. 3d 832 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 1984

Yet detainee/misdemeanants are clearly entitled to such credit under section 4019. … Since the one-for-one credit available under section 2933 is limited to actual participation in a qualified program and the statute itself clearly contemplates the creation of such programs in prisons, as opposed to county

Benach v. County of Los Angeles

57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2007

Indeed, even Benach, who the court found “actively participated in the wording of the settlement agreement,” acknowledged the document “was not clearly worded” in this regard. … Evidence at trial established there was a separate course of training for helicopter—as opposed to airplane—accident investigations.

Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

201 Cal. App. 2d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1962

It was found by the department to qualify as a “bona fide club” within the meaning of the Constitution and section 23037. … It clearly demonstrates the intent of the Legislature to keep clubs separate and apart from “public eating places” and “public premises” to which on-sale general licenses may be issued.

People v. Watson

113 Cal. App. 2d 799 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1952

There it was established that the witness was promised immunity on the express condition that he would give testimony which would result in the conviction of one jointly charged with him. … the case. ’ ’ Appellant singles the one sentence out of this instruction : “It is the law that the testimony of an accomplice ought to be viewed with distrust," and claims that it was error to give it since Augustine was clearly

O'Neil v. Shelby S.

7 Cal. App. 4th 1240 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1992

Was the Court Required to Advise the Parents of Use Immunity? Shelby’s final contention is that the court was required to advise him that he would be protected by use immunity if he admitted to sexual abuse. … If no admonition was required in those cases, it was clearly not required in this case. The court was under no duty to advise Shelby and Rebecca of use immunity. D.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Arcata National Corp.

59 Cal. App. 3d 959 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 8, 1976

The aforestated provisions establish on the one hand that the timber operations of appellants are connected to, regulated and permitted by, the government and therefore qualify as projects under Friends of Mammoth v. … The only plausible inference to be drawn from them is that the Legislature was presented the question of absolute immunity from CEQA, but impliedly rejected it. As said in Kirby v. Alcoholic Bev. etc.

Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2023

Henderson was not an expert qualified to offer it. Indeed, Dr. … Its policy applied to all employees except those with a qualifying religious or medical exemption. Cedars viewed plaintiff as having no qualifying exemption.

People v. Rodriguez

California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 2025

Under section 1172.6, a person convicted of a qualifying offense under the former law may petition for resentencing if the person could no longer be convicted of that offense under amended section 188. … Our high court subsequently clarified that Coleman’s use immunity rule was “essential to California’s privilege against self- incrimination.” (Ramona R. v.