Case law

Hopkins v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Appellate Division

2 Cal. App. 5th 1275 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 1, 2016

Shapiro that he had developed a problem with binge alcohol addiction, and they had been establishing a plan for treatment for substance abuse just before Hopkins’ DUI incident. Dr. … Here, the “matter” covered by section 1001.80 is a specific diversion program applicable only to certain qualifying defendants who are or were members of the United States military, applicable “whenever” a qualifying defendant

Penrod v. County of San Bernardino

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 717 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2005

1983 , or other similar cases involving section 1983 immunity. … The present case does not involve section 1983 immunity.

Dooley v. Johnson

133 Cal. App. 459 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1933

Each of them in the time required by law made application to the defendant, who was then the duly qualified and acting county assessor of the county of San Diego, California, for a veteran’s tax exemption for the year 1932 … the legislature from passing local or special laws in certain enumerated cases, of which the following: Subdivision 19— “Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity

C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

20 Cont. Cas. Fed. 82,957 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1974

The cases are clearly reconcilable. … “At the same time, however, a number of inroads or qualifications on the doctrine were established.

Davis v. Damrell

119 Cal. App. 3d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1981

In reaffirming the long-established principle immunizing the legal practitioner from liability resulting from an honest error in judgment concerning a doubtful or debatable point of law, the California Supreme Court imposed … Of course, those subsequent decisions are temporarlly irrelevant to the question to be decided herein relating to the state of the relevant law in 1970 which — as previously noted — postured clearly arguable issues "upon

AWI Builders v. Payne CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2024

The trial court rejected Nakagama’s assertions of absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, and litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b) (section 47). … Nakagama additionally argued that plaintiffs “cannot overcome” various forms of immunity and privilege, including absolute prosecutorial immunity, qualified immunity, and the section 47 litigation privilege.

People v. Price

175 Cal. App. 2d 857 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1959

The officers from Los Angeles were not accused by him of using any force or violence or of promising immunity or reward. … the accused, and such evidence of the surrounding circumstances could be used to establish the degree of the crime committed.

Rossco Holdings Inc. v. State of California

212 Cal. App. 3d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1989

Failure to do so renders the administrative action immune from collateral attack. (Ham, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at p. 1496.) … Because the Commission is clearly a state agency, it is immune from prosecution under 42 United States Code section 1983 .

Valero v. Spread Your Wings CA6

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2023

“The Easton court first concluded that the immunity provided in section 15634 to mandated reporters was absolute, rather than qualified. … The Easton court continued, ‘Clearly, the purpose of the statutory scheme of which section 15630 is a part and the precise language of the 1998 version of the section, would not be advanced by denying immunity to either [

Mercury Casualty Co. v. Hung Chu

229 Cal. App. 4th 1432 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 2014

[T]he freedom of the parties to exclude risks from an insurance contract is well established: [Citations.]’ … Mercury’s policy’s exclusion section contains, clearly and plainly, the exact language contained in the (c)(5) Exclusion.

People v. Phillips

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 84 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2001

He had advised Johnson not to testify about the firearm unless he received a grant of immunity. The prosecutor stated she would not grant Johnson immunity. … The statute thus lists the qualifying violations and the qualifying substances in the disjunctive. The violation must involve "a substance containing heroin, cocaine base ..., or cocaine...." (Italics added.)

Gibbons v. East Bay Regional Park District CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2025

There is nothing incongruous about a statute that establishes multiple partially overlapping immunities. (See Murphy v. … The absolute immunity established by section 831.4 is for “injury caused by a condition of” a trail; the qualified immunity established by section 831.7 is for injury arising out of hazardous recreational activities (id.,

Institute of Veterinary Pathology, Inc. v. California Health Laboratories, Inc.

116 Cal. App. 3d 111 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1981

Granting or denying the motion rests in its sole discretion which will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest and unmistakable abuse of that discretion clearly appears. (Jiminez v. … Simply stated, the marketplace should not be immune from ethics. Our review of the record as qualified by the court’s comments at the new trial motion, supports IVP’s contention defendants’ acted tortiously.

Brown v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2018

agreement and federal tax laws specifying when REMIC’s qualify as pass-through entities rather than taxable entities. … to the extent such immunity applies to their particular situations.

Thomas v. Thomas

192 Cal. App. 2d 771 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1961

To permit the plaintiff to reach the annuity benefits clearly violates that contractual undertaking. … Where annuities are made available pursuant to private insurance contract, the benefits provided thereunder are rendered immune to claims of creditors.

People v. Leal

210 Cal. App. 4th 829 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2012

[ft] California courts do not enforce the federal marijuana possession laws when defendants prosecuted for marijuana possession have a qualified immunity under section 11362.5. … Similarly, California courts should not enforce federal marijuana law for probationers who qualify for the immunity provided by section 11362.5.

Citizens for Responsible Development v. City of West Hollywood

39 Cal. App. 4th 490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1995

The Rear Structures also fail to qualify as historic resources pursuant to Public Resources Code section 5024.1, subdivision (g). … Substantial evidence does not include speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, or evidence that is clearly erroneous. (Ibid.)

Agnew v. City of Los Angeles

97 Cal. App. 2d 557 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1950

This witness is not qualified as an expert to testify in this ease. … His professional knowledge, learning and skill on this subject clearly qualified him to speak with authority, and he was fully competent to give the jury his opinion as to the cause of aseptic necrosis generally and as to

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court

15 Cal. App. 4th 576 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 1993

Thus, in order to qualify for price deregulation as an NGPA § 103 well, the well must first qualify for NGPA § 103 ceiling price treatment.” However, section 3331(a) does not say what Anacapa asserts it says. … Neither the terms of the alleged oral contract nor the time when it was made were clearly established by the evidence.”

Young v. REMX

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2016

Our Supreme Court has “emphasized that orders that only limit the scope of a class or the number of claims available to it are not similarly tantamount to dismissal and do not qualify for immediate appeal under the death … In any event, because of the remaining PAGA claim, plaintiff has not established the second rationale for the death knell doctrine: that “ ‘the persistence of viable but perhaps de minimis individual plaintiff claims creates