Case law

Passman v. Torkan

34 Cal. App. 4th 607 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1995

immunity. … immunity.”

People v. Onesra Enterprises

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2017

Immunity—LAMC Section 45.19.6.3, Subdivision E In regard to LAMC section 45.19.6.2, the trial court determined defendants did not qualify for immunity under LAMC section 45.19.6.3 because they failed to satisfy the … Thus, the use of the disjunctive clearly expresses that the failure to obtain registration either in 2011 or 2012 will suffice to disqualify the defendant from immunity.

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

Berry v. State of California

2 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1992

We shall further conclude that a free stump does not qualify as a diving platform. … Berry appeals contending the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer as she had pled facts which established an exception to the section 831.7 immunity asserted by the State.

Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton

California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2025

But the opinion clearly indicated that we did not rely on Henry’s declaration to conclude that reversible error occurred. … City is entitled to immunity.

A.B. v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2025

immunity because it found there was “no clearly established law that would have put [the deputy defendants] on notice that the force they used was excessive.” … immunity.

Rodas v. Spiegel

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2001

Both clearly stated what they covered. … Inasmuch as preparation of that estimate does not qualify as an intentional falsehood, it does not qualify as malice. (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

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

Alcala v. CITY OF CORCORAN

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 908 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2007

This is sufficient to establish that Order No. 6.1 was the formally adopted written pursuit policy for the department. … Policy’s compliance with statutory requirements In order for the immunity to apply under section 17004.7, a public entity must adopt a pursuit policy that clearly and with specificity sets forth standards to guide officers

Lamere v. the Superior Court

31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 2005

ultra vires and thus lost any immunity. … The point may be most clearly made by the example of litigation concerning the outcome of an election.

Decker v. City of Imperial Beach

209 Cal. App. 3d 349 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 1989

Clearly, the “act” delineated in this subdivision is not intended to duplicate those mentioned in the other immunity exemptions, i.e., a public entity’s promotion or sponsorship of a hazardous recreational activity, provision … I’d have to qualify that a little bit. The routine rescue meaning to reach the victim would have not been a difficult task at all.

People v. Singleton

182 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2010

On this matter, the high court held that once the defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, the prosecuting authorities “ ‘have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted.’ ” (Kastigar … This court may find error only if the witness ‘ “clearly lacks qualification as an expert.” ’ [Citation.]

People v. Housman

163 Cal. App. 3d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 27, 1984

Not more than three (3) permits shall be issued for each qualified dwelling unit to any qualified applicant. … Clearly the cultural and educational rewards of international travel ( Kent v.

Mayer v. Willing

196 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 1961

It is not alleged that either Horace or Minnie was qualified as guardian in this state. … Solely with respect to the disability of foreign representatives to bring an action, certain exceptions, none of which is applicable here, have been established.

Toney v. State of California

54 Cal. App. 3d 779 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 1976

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.” In Johnson v. … It is established that the privilege is lost upon a showing of “actual malice” on the part of the person publishing the alleged defamatory material. (Kapellas v.

Yong Shao Ma v. City & County of San Francisco

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 544 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2002

To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. … That came in 1989 when an unsuccessful Senate bill sought to change the qualified immunity to absolute immunity. (See Sen. Bill No. 762, introduced Mar. 1, 1989 (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Sen. Bill No. 762 (1989-1990 Reg.

City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments

214 Cal. App. 4th 358 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 2013

Cross-defendants Failed to Establish Prosecutorial Immunity The City and Lee also claim prosecutorial immunity. … Cross-defendants Failed to Establish Immunity for Misrepresentations Finally, the City and Lee cite governmental immunities for “misrepresentations.”

County of San Bernardino v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2022

Moreover, under subdivision (b) of section 815, the immunity provisions of the California Tort Claims Act will generally prevail over any liabilities established by statute. [Citations.] … We conclude the SAC and numerous documents attached to the SAC establish, as a matter of law, that the County is immune from liability under Government Code sections 818.8 and 822.2.

Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court

174 Cal. App. 3d 711 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1985

Nor, as a practical matter, are physicians the only health care professionals qualified to *719 participate in the vital functions of such committees. … Moreover, the JCAH Manual clearly distinguishes between the responsibility of the hospital administration to establish and operate such a program and the responsibility of the infection control committee to evaluate the effectiveness

People v. Jackson

210 Cal. App. 4th 525 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 2012

“That certainly does not in any way establish that the association was for the purpose of cultivation. It only establishes that some of the people may have been cultivating. That’s very different. … The CUA thus provided a limited immunity from prosecution, including a defense at trial. [Citation.]