Case law

Rosato v. Superior Court

51 Cal. App. 3d 190 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1975

Farr refused, claiming immunity under Evidence Code section 1070. … “If Evidence Code section 1070' were to be applied to the matter at bench to immunize petitioner from liability, that application would violate the principle of separation of powers established by our Supreme Court.

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.

Sacramento County Department of Social Services v. Eugene B.

192 Cal. App. 3d 771 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 12, 1987

“Tt is an established canon of interpretation that statutes are not to be given a retrospective operation unless it is clearly made to appear that such was the legislative intent.’ ” (Cole v. … Retroactivity is not clearly implied in the statutory language. Nor is retroactivity clearly implied in the language of the 1983 amendment of subdivision (a)(2) of section 232.

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.’

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.

People v. Schmies

44 Cal. App. 4th 38 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1996

In general, “[p]roximate cause is clearly established where the act is directly connected with the resulting injury, with no intervening force *49 operating.” (1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. … But such an officer is immune from liability for civil damages and, under some circumstances, his or her employer may also be immune. (Veh. Code, §§ 17004, 17004.7.)

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.

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.)

Sada v. Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center

56 Cal. App. 4th 138 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 1997

To accomplish this, the [employer] must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the [employee’s] rejection. … We first observe that, when an employer seeks to establish on summary judgment that an applicant was not qualified for a job, it should describe the job qualifications in terms that are as specific and objective as possible

Eaker v. Bryant

24 Cal. App. 87 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 1914

Because it grants to some classes of citizens special privileges and immunities which upon the same terms are not granted to other citizens (Const., art. I, sec. 21); and 3. … The business of pawnbroking is one well known to the law, and constitutes of itself a distinct class of persons and things which may be properly regulated by a law applying to them alone, as was clearly held in the decision

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.

Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 453 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 2003

In any event, according to San Anselmo, the interim contract approval was not legislative and thus is immune from the referendum power. … However, the interim waste management contract does not qualify as an urgency measure. Section 9235 does not define further what measures qualify as urgency measures.

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT v. Emerich

69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 678 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2007

The list of projects set forth in Measure C clearly identifies the types of projects to be funded. … Like the plaintiff in Neilson , Katz is not an “otherwise qualified” voter in any District election.

Anderson v. Geist

236 Cal. App. 4th 79 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 22, 2015

This letter states that plaintiff’s allegation that “Deputy Geist arrested Tammi Anderson for a warrant that was recalled” was “[e]xonerated,” meaning “[t]he investigation clearly established that the actions of the officer … Moreover, to qualify for protection under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(4), the conduct at issue must be “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest”—that is, it must “concern[] a topic of widespread

In Re Marriage of Shupe

139 Cal. App. 3d 1026 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 16, 1983

Swoap, supra, 94 Cal.App.3d 733 , had invalidated this first attempt by finding that section 5127.5 did not establish an adequate legal obligation between stepparents and their nonadopted stepchildren. … Under this holding, section 5127.6 clearly would have been invalid for failure to comply with *1033 the federal requirements in existence at the time of its enactment.

Chase v. Kalber

28 Cal. App. 561 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1915

This language clearly presupposes the existence of such powers in the people, and unquestionably refers to the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution reserved to the people by the preceding provision of … interpretation by the legislature of the provision of the constitution under consideration and of the nature and extent of the powers thereby delegated to the electors of the cities and towns of the state—an interpretation clearly

People v. J.C.

246 Cal. App. 4th 1462 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2016

Of course, when the Legislature clearly intends a statute to operate retrospectively, we are obliged to carry out that intent unless due process considerations prevent us. … Similarly, a review of the legislative history of the original legislation failed to establish a clear legislative intent. (Id. at pp. 928–930.)

Keane v. Mihaly

11 Cal. App. 3d 1037 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1970

Thus, while we surely would follow the Pope and Drueding cases had not the United States Supreme Court in later cases established a new standard, and the Supreme Court in this state clearly recognized and announced the change … Since it has been established in Castro v.

Coito v. Superior Court

182 Cal. App. 4th 758 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2010

improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial. . . . … Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495 [ 91 L.Ed. 451 , 67 S.Ct. 385 ] ( Hickman ), which established in the federal courts "a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney acting for his client in anticipation of

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.