Case law

Mouchette v. Board of Education

217 Cal. App. 3d 303 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1990

Governmental Immunity The Board next contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for nonsuit on the ground that Norwood was immune from liability under Government Code section 820.2. … As the evidence here clearly supports Mouchette’s claim of emotional distress resulting from Norwood’s interference with his contractual relations, the jury’s verdict may be upheld.

Shenson v. Fresno Meat Packing Co.

96 Cal. App. 2d 725 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1950

First, they, in their own names, were not qualified to receive this subsidy; and secondly, in order for anyone to have qualified to receive a subsidy payment legally, he had to comply with certain requirements. … The évi *731 dence clearly shows that plaintiffs, by reason of these facts, joined with defendant, a duly licensed slaughterer, who qualified for a permit under the combined quotas of all of the plaintiffs, representing that

Barry v. Board of Directors

7 Cal. App. 2d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1935

for this procedure it violates no mandatory or directory provision of any election law; and that this procedure preserved the record so that anyone casting such a marked ballot and who claimed a right to vote could later establish … is void because sections 4a and 4b are unconstitutional in that they are local and special laws where general laws can be made applicable, that they do not have a uniform operation, that they grant special privileges or immunities

People v. Galosco

85 Cal. App. 3d 456 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1978

Having established that Mr. … The defendants’ arrest being valid, in conjunction with Burton’s statement that the “loot” was in the trunk, clearly established that Officer Tabak had probable cause to search not only the car, but also the trunk and its

Page v. City of Montebello

112 Cal. App. 3d 658 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1980

The case is clearly distinguishable since the facts show the city council approved and ratified the employment of the claimants and instructed the auditor to draw warrants for their payment. … its immunity with respect to misrepresentation by an *672 employee.

Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2017

she would prevail because the County’s actions were not privileged or covered by governmental immunity. … The County was not entitled to immunity, and its actions were not privileged. 4.

L.A. Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2021

Thus, the Tort Claims Act draws a rational distinction by maintaining sovereign immunity from punitive damages that are “awarded to punish the defendant and to deter [outrageous] conduct in the future,” while waiving immunity … The news articles cannot be used to establish the truth of the matter asserted and they do not provide additional information relevant to a material issue in this case. (See Doe v.

Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services v. Irene V.

195 Cal. App. 4th 197 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 2011

Establishing a father’s status is often more difficult. … He never married or attempted to marry Melissa, so section 7611, subdivision (a) is clearly inapplicable.

Baker v. City of Los Angeles

188 Cal. App. 3d 902 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 1986

Clearly, as discussed above, the act of one policeman in voluntarily assuming a duty could not obligate the police department to protect respondent indefinitely. … Respondent failed to establish that appellant owed her a duty of care beyond that which appellant had fully met.

Kramer v. Ferguson

230 Cal. App. 2d 237 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1964

Plaintiffs quote at length from the instructions given and state that “the jury was clearly advised that the qualified privilege existed. ’ ’ A more accurate statement would be that the jury was advised that the defense of … We have no legal method by which to establish whether the jury determined that the communications were or were not qualifiedly privileged.

Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga

175 Cal. App. 4th 1306 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2009

The criteria established to determine whether an entity was qualified to accept mitigation lands were: “a. … Section 170, subdivision (h)(1)(B), of that title states that for purposes of qualifying for a tax deduction for a qualified conservation contribution, such a contribution is one that is given to a “qualified organization

People v. Humiston

20 Cal. App. 4th 460 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1993

They soon established a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Through Jurado, Humiston met Shigemura, Holloway and Brian Johnsen. … Use immunity has also been applied in juvenile cases. For example, in Bryan v.

Gaytan v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

134 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2003

In contrast, interpretation of governing statutes is decided de novo by the appellate court, even though the WCAB’s construction is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous. (Boehm & Associates v. … Moreover, Gee holds that the presumption arises when the operative facts are established, 10 and both sides agreed Dr. Heskiaoff is the discharging primary treating physician and Dr.

Zepeda v. City of Los Angeles

223 Cal. App. 3d 232 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 3, 1990

To that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services." (Health & Saf. Code, § 1799.107, subd. (a); italics added.) … In determining whether the defendants were liable, the Court of Appeal found that Health and Safety Code section 1799.106 established a duty for emergency personnel to provide "medical services in a manner which was not grossly

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen

146 Cal. App. 3d 200 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1983

This second step in the analysis is necessary because ... the privilege is qualified and not absolute. Where the intent is not proper, the privilege is lost.” … These are affirmative defenses and are usually established by proof of facts rather than pleadings.” (Fn. omitted) In Collins v.

Board of Education v. Industrial Accident Commission

3 Cal. App. 2d 411 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 1934

The county welfare officials sent Stout to the board to qualify himself for a position in this project. … Nor does the finding that the board received the benefit of his services in anywise support a conclusion that thereby the status of employee was established.

Cox v. State Social Welfare Board

193 Cal. App. 2d 708 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1961

The argument as to the privileges and immunities clause discloses an equal lack of merit. … Rule A-212.53, a state regulation controlling state grants, clearly does not fall within the privileges and immunities clause.

Roger v. County of Riverside

California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2020

Counsel added, “The County can’t come up with some form that doesn’t even clearly articulate what it is that it’s looking for. If [it’s] looking for accrual, then [the form] should say ‘accrual.’ … Prosecutorial immunity Respondents argue the prosecutorial immunity in section 821.6 supplies an alternate ground for upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the defamation claims.

People v. Gonzalez

California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2020

“The starting point of our analysis is ‘the strong presumption that legislative enactments “must be upheld unless their unconstitutionality clearly, positively, and unmistakably appears. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’” … It is unlawful for a [p]erson to establish, operate or participate in a medical marijuana collective or cooperative unless in a dwelling unit with three or fewer qualified patients, persons with identification cards or primary

In Re Justin S.

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2001

Our colleagues in Division Five, by analogy to objections to evidence, held that such a contention is not immune from Welch 's waiver rule. (See In re Josue S., supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 170, 84 Cal. … (See also, In re Bushman (1970) 1 Cal.3d 767, 776-777 , 83 Cal.Rptr. 375 , 463 P.2d 727 , as qualified by People v.