Case law

Watson v. Department of Rehabilitation

212 Cal. App. 3d 1271 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 8, 1989

Governmental Immunity The State asserts with similar lack of authority that the broad tort immunity provided the state by Government Code section 815 bars Watson’s action. … By not designating a qualified person, the State waived its right to have an officer or employee present.

Lee v. City of San Jose CA6

California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2025

And subdivision (c) extends qualified immunity to “[a]ny paved trail, walkway, path, or sidewalk on an easement of way which has been granted to a public entity, which easement provides access to any unimproved property.” … But to “ ‘justify departing from a literal reading of a clearly worded statute, the results produced must be so unreasonable the Legislature could not have intended them.’ ” (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v.

People v. Stephen P.

145 Cal. App. 3d 123 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 20, 1983

II Grant of Immunity Appellant’s contention that he was denied due process of law because he was singled out for prosecution while the others were granted immunity *133 is without merit. … I find the case clearly distinguishable from Eugene M. and also from Johnny G.....”

Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Amer. Asphalt So., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 2015

The Rubino court held that the ability to reject and award bids vested the director with discretion, and that his abuse of that discretion qualified for government immunity in a tort action for damages. … Each in some measure rests on government immunity principles arising from an agency’s discretion to reject or accept bids.

First National Bank v. Lynch

19 Cal. App. 2d 291 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1937

Appellant is the duly appointed, qualified and acting trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Preston Duncan, bankrupt. … It seems to be the established rule in this state that where a latent ambiguity exists in a will such evidence is admissible.

Rickley v. County of Los Angeles

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 406 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 6, 2004

Nothing could so clearly show that this is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the established statutory scheme mandated by the Legislature. (§ 5096 et seq.) … Such liens are matters of public record and respondent cannot overcome the immunity conferred on the County.

Paraco, Inc. v. Department of Agriculture

118 Cal. App. 2d 348 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 1953

of virgin stock oil could easily maintain high prices to the detriment of the public; out of state re-refiners who ship their oils to this state are not subject to the record keeping requirements of our law and are thus immune … The labeling statute clearly requires that if oil has been previously used or has been rerun, filtered, redistilled or reclaimed the container shall bear the label.

Vinci v. Edmonds

185 Cal. App. 3d 1251 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1986

As such, it has been held that relief will be granted under section 10471 unless to do so is clearly forbidden by statute. {Ibid.) … Commissioner has failed to establish any abuse of discretion in that ruling. (See Booth v.

Paul v. Eggman

244 Cal. App. 2d 461 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1966

Were the oranges, the sale of which was enjoined herein, ‘in a retail establishment in possession of a retailer for the purpose of resale directly to consumers, ’ so as to bring this within the first clause of exception ( … declarations are not binding upon this court, they are, as declarations of policy, ‘1 entitled to great weight and it is not the duty or *472 prerogative of the courts to interfere with such legislative finding unless it clearly

People v. Klatt

California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 2014

In light of the competing interests, it is well established that incriminating answers may be officially compelled, without violating the privilege, when the person to be examined receives immunity ‘coextensive with the scope … As we explained in Friday, the state clearly has a substantial interest in encouraging such communication.

Lipton v. Superior Court

48 Cal. App. 4th 1599 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1996

and, if a qualified privilege applies, the reasons for not permitting discovery. … In addition, the court should resolve any factual disputes as to whether the party claiming a qualified privilege has established the basis therefor and whether the party seeking discovery has demonstrated an overriding need

In Re Marriage of Levingston

12 Cal. App. 4th 1303 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1993

Leola replies that this court, in In re Marriage of Baker, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 206 , established that state courts have jurisdiction to issue and *1306 enforce QDRO’s. True enough, but that is not the issue here. … Leola’s motion, filed in the dissolution action, is clearly to recover benefits she claims are due her, to enforce her rights and to clarify her rights to future benefits.

Fuhrman v. California Satellite Systems

179 Cal. App. 3d 408 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1986

Code, § 47, subd. 2.) 3 Cal-Sat further claimed a qualified privilege for good faith assertion of its legal rights while pursuing its economic interests. … This is most clearly seen in airplane accident causes, where, although the injuries indubitably possess a common origin, courts decline to adjudicate such causes as class actions. [Citations.]

Nicewarner v. Kaiser Steel Corp.

143 Cal. App. 3d 31 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1983

The declarations offered in support of the motion clearly demonstrated defendant’s right to summary judgment. … Nevertheless, based upon this showing, plaintiffs counsel was adamant in assuming that the risk to the public had been established.

People v. Dufford

163 Cal. App. 2d 673 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1958

A deputy sheriff testified at the hearing on the motion that on February 2, at 1:30 a. m., he had a conversation with appellant at the county jail in the presence of appellant’s sister; that there were no promises of immunity … The basis of the application for relief must be established by clear and convincing evidence. (People v. Cooper, 123 Cal.App.2d 353 [ 266 P.2d 566 ].)” In People v.

Mt. Diablo Hospital District v. Superior Court

183 Cal. App. 3d 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1986

The Hospital contends that the documents which the trial court ordered it to produce are immune from discovery under Evidence Code section 1157. 1 On March 10, 1986, this court notified counsel for the parties in writing … “Certain types of information are so clearly within the exclusive sphere of a protected medical staff committee . . . that section 1157 can be found applicable without extensive judicial inquiry.”

Mallard v. Progressive Choice Insurance

188 Cal. App. 4th 531 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2010

Mallard does not contend any of the subject subpoenas fails to qualify as a writing within the meaning of section 425.16, subdivision (e)(2). … Thus, it has been established for well over a century that a communication is absolutely immune from any tort liability if it has “ ‘some relation’ ” to judicial proceedings.’ ” (Contemporary Services Corp. v.

Thompson v. McKenna

22 Cal. App. 129 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1913

The latter was appointed and qualified as administrator of her estate. … On behalf of defendant witnesses, after qualifying as surveyors, testified that they could not identify the land from the description in the deed.

Tucci v. Club Mediterranee, SA

107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 401 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2001

With respect to the exclusivity of workers’ compensation, the laws of California and the Dominican Republic are clearly different. … California has clearly expressed its interest in swiftly compensating its own residents for work-related injuries (State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Ind. Acc.

Fenton v. City of Delano

162 Cal. App. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 1984

The legislative body may establish zones or areas within the local agency and may restrict the levy of the special tax to those zones or areas. … The language of Government Code section 53978 speaks of “special taxes” and provides for the establishment of particular zones or areas within which the tax can be imposed.