Case law

Wyatt v. Arnot

7 Cal. App. 221 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1907

The principle upon which the rule as laid down in this state rests is fully and clearly explained in Weaver v. … He had a right to resign, and, indeed, it was his duty to do so if he intended to qualify as judge for El Dorado county.

Gibbons v. East Bay Regional Park District CA1/1

California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 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.,

Adams v. City of Fremont

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 196 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 4, 1999

What the majority has really done, however, is to eliminate a duty clearly established in our jurisprudence by creating what amounts to a new form of governmental immunity. … The “situation of dependency” and resultant reliance on the police officers at the scene, by respondents as well as by the decedent, is much more clearly established by the evidence in this case than in the cases the majority

Zhang v. Superior Court

178 Cal. App. 4th 1081 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2009

Again we stress that to construe the Unfair Insurance Practices Act as immunizing insurers from the consequences of misconduct that other business must suffer would simply make no sense. … She will also have to establish that real party in interest advertised or otherwise represented to the public that it operated honestly and equitably in settling claims and that it in fact had a policy or regular practice

Coelho v. Truckell

9 Cal. App. 2d 47 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1935

County the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the federal and those provisions of section 21 of article I of the state Constitution which prohibit the granting of special privileges and immunities … The two mentioned in the agreed statement of facts, being the only federal employees with whom we are concerned, are regular veterinarians and qualified to administer tuberculin tests.

Corey v. Knight

150 Cal. App. 2d 671 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1957

electors of the district at the first general state election held following the expiration of 90 days and qualify.” … If those two courts are the same court (identified by different names), plaintiff is clearly eligible regardless of the time to which the words ‘ existing court’ refer.

Brown v. Ransweiler

171 Cal. App. 4th 516 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2009

Ojeda’s actions clearly indicated his intent to harm the officers. … Even if one could infer that Ojeda would not have been able to escape by driving on the sidewalk, as the Browns suggest, the facts still establish that Ojeda’s conduct in driving on the sidewalk toward the officers clearly

People v. Black

73 Cal. App. 13 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1925

Surely, nowhere in the record did he state clearly the actual rule on the subject under consideration. … Cruzan: It is clearly for the court to determine.”

Soils v. Oilfields Trucking Co.

90 Cal. App. 3d 349 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 12, 1979

Thus the cases relied upon by plaintiff do not establish the rule that mere permissive use of an automobile raises the inference of agency. … Nor is agency established here through any other inference as claimed by respondent in its contention (2).

Costa v. Superior Court

157 Cal. App. 3d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1984

Once the stated conditions for immunity are shown to exist, the absolute privilege applies “even though the publication is made outside the courtroom and no function of the court or its officers is invoked.” … Costa Chairman, Board of Directors 1 Other grounds urged included a claim of qualified privilege (see Civ.

FNS Mortgage Service Corp. v. Pacific General Group, Inc.

24 Cal. App. 4th 1564 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1994

IAPMO arguably has undertaken to perform a duty owed by local building officials to consumers (albeit one for which the officials would be afforded statutory immunity). … This would effectively confer on IAPMO governmental immunity, a legislative, not a judicial function. (See Lopez v. Southern Cal.

Ludwig v. Superior Court

37 Cal. App. 4th 8 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1995

The statute clearly expresses a legislative suspicion of SLAPP suits and an intent to weed out all but those having demonstrable merit. … Thus, in those cases, a termination based on the statute of limitations did not qualify as a “favorable termination.”

P. ex rel. Bonta v. City of Huntington Beach

California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 2025

Thus, amici for the City contend, the City has authority to determine that only voters who can present identification are qualified to vote. … Thus, while amici for the City contend the purpose of the word “plenary” was to immunize charter cities and counties from state law even on questions of statewide importance, the history of its addition to the Constitution

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 2003

Qualified immunity shields officers from suits for damages under section 1983 if a reasonable officer could have believed the suspect's detention to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the detaining … Because many of the underlying facts will need to be determined by the jury, we find without merit Wiles's contention that the judgment in his favor can be affirmed on the ground that he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Clark v. Lesher

106 Cal. App. 2d 403 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 1951

He was appointed and qualified. On June 25, 1948 he took possession of the business and assets of the partnership and “ousted plaintiff therefrom.” … The amended complaint sets forth these facts clearly. It is alleged that all the assets of the partnership have been reduced to money and all of its debts paid.

Santa Ana Hospital Medical Center v. Belshe

56 Cal. App. 4th 819 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1997

Thus, appellant is not being foreclosed from a remedy for denial of established rights but is only being denied a remedy for allocation of an expectancy in the form of a supplement. … due process, or the constitution waived the state’s immunity from suit.

Winikow v. Superior Court

82 Cal. App. 4th 719 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 2000

“In [sic] is inappropriate to award costs against the trial judge or the Superior Court, as to do so would chill the judicial process which judicial immunity was established to protect. … We need not decide whether or not an act in excess of jurisdiction would avoid immunity for an award of costs against respondent.

People v. Smith

62 Cal. App. 4th 1233 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1998

First, subdivision 1 includes fear arising from a threat of injury to property, which clearly does not involve a high probability of death. … However, because we conclude that extortion does not provide a legal basis for felony murder, Smith clearly cannot be retried on that theory.

People v. Raffington

98 Cal. App. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 14, 1950

. * Defendant contends that his constitutional rights have been infringed, asserting he was denied due process of law and his privileges and immunities were abridged in that: (1) he was charged by an information filed by … "Whenever the design of a person to commit a crime is clearly shown, slight acts done in furtherance of the design will constitute an attempt. (People v. Lanzit, 70 Cal.App. 498, 505 [ 233 P. 816 ]; People v.

Jaynes v. Stockton

193 Cal. App. 2d 47 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1961

The board is not the final arbiter of its authority to act; this is a judicial function involving the application of law to facts; the court determines the facts in accord with established rules; and its determination in … The courts will not presume “that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary