Case law

San Francisco International Yachting Center Development Group v. City & County of San Francisco

9 Cal. App. 4th 672 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 1992

The City also *676 moved for judgment on the pleadings on the misrepresentation causes of action on the ground of governmental immunity. (Gov. … Section 4 of the Act provides for the establishment of a separate Harbor Trust Fund *678 or Funds upon the transfer.

People v. Allen

20 Cal. App. 4th 846 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1993

The Legislature Clearly Intended That Willfulness Is Not Required Under Section 19401. … The court concluded that “[w]hen the Legislature included the qualifying word ‘wilfully’ in the felony statute, which clearly applies only to a person who intended to evade payment of the tax imposed, but omitted this qualifying

Coalition for Fair Rent v. Abdelnour

107 Cal. App. 3d 97 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 1980

Third, even assuming increase in burden, it is not apparent the technique cannot be used in supplemental filing situations, first as applied to the initial filing which will clearly have more than 500 signatures, and then … The opinion of the court in Gage established reasonable principles regarding qualification of initiative measures.

Nguyen v. PROTON TECHNOLOGY CORP.

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 1999

This privilege is absolute, not qualified, even when prelitigation communications are implicated. (See Aronson v. … Whatever the pre-Silberg merits of these expansive views, 9 we think they are clearly outdated in view of the limitations we have quoted from that case.

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.

Alhambra Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Alhambra Police Department

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 432 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2003

Thus, the trial court properly denied the writ of mandate on the ground that no violation of the Act had been established. B. Torrance is not immune from discipline even if he acted as a representative. … Even if the section were applicable—and even if Torrance were acting as Marquez’s representative—section 3303 would not immunize Torrance from discipline for his conduct.

People v. Hoosier

24 Cal. App. 746 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 10, 1914

The defendant attempted to establish an alibi by the presentation of evidence tending to show that, on the evening of the day upon which the offense is charged by the information to have been committed, and on several evenings … But the circumstances of the crime are such as to clearly and definitely mark and identify it and so make his conviction thereof available as a plea of former conviction and once in jeopardy in case, after such conviction

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. 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.

Zack v. Marin Emergency Radio Authority

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 2004

Section 53090 is the source of the intergovernmental immunity enjoyed by the County, but it is not the source of MERA’s immunity, which results instead from direct operation of section 6509. (Cooper v. … Clearly, due to the intergovernmental immunity, Marin County need not comply with Tiburón’s general plan. (Lawler v. City of Redding, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 783-784.)

C.O.M.E.T. v. City of Redlands CA4/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2024

Not every complaint that contests the validity of property annexation automatically qualifies as a reverse validation proceeding. … As the statute clearly indicates, section 818.8 immunizes “misrepresentation,” whether “negligent or intentional.” (Johnson v.

Pekarek v. City of San Diego

30 Cal. App. 4th 909 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1994

The latter situation presents the issue of providing police protection service for which a public entity is immune under section 845. … “Rodriguez’s allegations clearly have nothing to do with the physical condition of the property, or the misuse of it in any way, but relate only to ‘the condition of persons on that property.’

Holman v. State of California

53 Cal. App. 3d 317 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1975

Clearly, the nature of the work involved a special hazard to plaintiff which was foreseeable to the defendant general contractor. … Negligence occurring at the “operational-level” of decisionmaking is not immune. (69 Cal.2d, pp. 793-794.)

Alana M. v. .State of California CA1/3

245 Cal. App. 4th 1482 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 29, 2016

We begin with a brief discussion of the purpose of the natural condition immunity and cases applying the immunity before addressing Alana’s specific argument that the tree that injured her qualifies as “improved” public property … For his position that it was the location of the injury that determined whether the immunity applied, the plaintiff in Meddock relied on Eben’s statement that, “ ‘to qualify public property as improved so as to take it outside

Allison v. Allison

189 Cal. App. 3d 849 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1987

Clearly the appellant—the now ex-Mrs. Allison—did not qualify as a surviving annuitant under the simple language of the retirement plan as her marriage to respondent had been dissolved before he retired. … This doctrine, established in Benson v.

Intercommunity Medical Center v. Belshe

32 Cal. App. 4th 1708 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 1995

Separate cost entities can only be established for components providing clearly different services; e.g., short-term acute, long-term medical, long-term psychiatric, or long-term tuberculosis. … IMC relies upon two letters from federal HCFA officials stating their opinions that short-term psychiatric units might qualify for separate cost center status under PRM section 2336.

Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court

106 Cal. App. 3d 646 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1980

Defendants’ publication of said article is protected by a qualified privilege set forth in Section 47(3) of the California Civil Code. “4. … with actual malice; that she as a public official and public figure was required to establish such malice.

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.”

Ruiz v. Safeway, Inc.

209 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2012

The standard of review for summary judgment is well established. … The immunity granted by section 25602, is subject to one exception.

Scarano v. Schnoor

158 Cal. App. 2d 612 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 1958

Proe. § 2055) for those purposes, since he was not qualified as an expert. An examination of the transcript shows that he was qualified by counsel for appellant as an expert at the beginning of his cross-examination. … It clearly was. Counsel for appellant said that he would reframe the question, but instead went on to another subject. The case was fairly tried and we find nothing in the record to justify a reversal.