Case law

Ewing v. County of Los Angeles CA2/4

California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2023

Immunity under section 1983 and Monell Ewing also argues that specifically in the context of section 1983, “prosecutorial immunity does not apply to all prosecutorial conduct.” … The County’s respondent’s brief fails to address immunity for section 1983 claims, immunity under the federal cases Ewing cites,8 or immunity relevant to Ewing’s Monell claim.

Davis v. Damrell

119 Cal. App. 3d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 1, 1981

In reaffirming the long-established principle immunizing the legal practitioner from liability resulting from an honest error in judgment concerning a doubtful or debatable point of law, the California Supreme Court imposed … Of course, those subsequent decisions are temporarily irrelevant to the question to be decided herein relating to the state of the relevant law in 1970 which—as previously noted— postured clearly arguable issues “upon which

Ascherman v. San Francisco Medical Society

39 Cal. App. 3d 623 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1974

It was, therefore, proper for the Legislature to grant those charged with the investigation of the competence of applicants for membership and of existing members of a hospital staff, the qualified immunity conferred by section … “This section shall not be construed to confer immunity from liability on any professional society or hospital.

In Re Brady

65 Cal. App. 345 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 1924

The court said, in part: “This provision is clearly unconstitutional and void. It does not apply to counties of any other class. . . . … I, sec. 21) expressly prohibiting the granting of special privileges or immunities.

Gordon J. v. Santa Ana Unified School District

162 Cal. App. 3d 530 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1984

But “[t]he answer to that problem is not to apply a watered-down Fourth Amendment standard in criminal prosecutions but to recognize a qualified immunity for school officials in civil actions.” (State v. … That has already occurred: “It is well settled that school officials possess a qualified good faith immunity with respect to acts performed within the course of their duties. Wood v.

Gomes v. Fried

136 Cal. App. 3d 924 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1982

“Officers Not Immune “(3) Officers are not immune from violating the law, just because they’re on duty. … He attempted to establish that the article had hurt his chances in the oral part of a promotional examination.

Or Khaim Hashalom v. City of Santa Monica

190 Cal. App. 4th 375 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2010

The court dispelled the contention that the exemption violates the establishment clause by providing economic advantages to religious groups at the expense of neighbors. … Section 37361, subdivision (c) clearly requires that the property be noncommercial.

California Federation of Teachers v. Oxnard Elementary Schools

272 Cal. App. 2d 514 · California Court of Appeal · May 1, 1969

Clearly, the Winton Act cannot be considered unfair or prejudicial to appellants, nor does it unduly favor its proponents. … Leona Miller was only one of numerous credentialed applicants who were not employed by the District and there was no evidence that persons less qualified than she were in fact hired by the District at that time.

Nadaf-Rahrov v. the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.

166 Cal. App. 4th 952 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2008

(k), predecessor to § 12940(m), must establish he or she is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of the job]; Brundage v. … “[Wjhile subdivision (m) does not make reference to a plaintiffs occupational qualifications, the statute as a whole clearly institutes a requirement that a plaintiff be qualified.” (Ibid.)

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.

Marin Ass'n of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Ass'n

2 Cal. App. 5th 674 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2016

But this is clearly what plaintiffs believe is missing from the trial court’s order. … Constitutional decisions “have never given a law which imposes unforeseen advantages or burdens on a contracting party constitutional immunity against change.” [Citations.]’ [Citations.]” (Allen v.

Kimball v. County of Santa Clara

24 Cal. App. 3d 780 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1972

Moreover, since the evidence establishes that plaintiff is subject to the County Employees Retirement Law, he would not be a “local member" of the Public Employees’ Retirement System. … They do not, however, relegate those who qualify as “local members” to the restrictive delineations of the statutes relied upon by defendant.

Hill v. Newkirk

26 Cal. App. 4th 1047 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 12, 1994

Thus, the Fund was established to provide liability coverage for occurrences peculiar to foster care. … Hill failed to establish a “reasonable possibility” she could amend her complaint to satisfy section 1527.6.

Wallace v. City of Los Angeles

12 Cal. App. 4th 1385 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1993

Section 845 Government Code section 845 states in pertinent part: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, … this immunity provision was meant to protect.

White Dragon Productions, Inc. v. Performance Guarantees, Inc.

196 Cal. App. 3d 163 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 1987

When the state has no record of their existence, suspension or forfeiture is impossible. 10 It would defy logic to immunize a nonqualified tax-delinquent corporation from the “action, defense or right” which would have accrued … Had we not concluded the Agreement is voidable, we would have upheld the judgment because Performance Guarantees has otherwise established its right to the account as a matter of law pursuant to the terms of the Agreement

Estate of Lindner

85 Cal. App. 3d 219 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1978

Thus, it is reasoned, only the specific gifts or "bequests" of personal property provided under the third paragraph are immunized from the normal consequences of proportionate federal estate tax liability and state succession … In discharging that duty we are governed by established rules of testamentary construction: "The presumption of a technical meaning *226 established by section 106 is subordinate to the dominant purpose of finding and effecting

Leong v. San Francisco Parking, Inc.

235 Cal. App. 3d 827 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1991

The allegations in the Leongs’ first amended complaint bring their claim against SF Parking and the Giants clearly within the scope of section 25602, subdivision (b). … immunity “would be compelling if plaintiff had been driving his own car . . . .”

People v. Richard

114 Cal. App. 3d 824 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 1981

(b)) unless it qualifies for admissibility under some exception to the hearsay rule. … The mere asking of questions on cross-examination relating to whether Stephens had been granted immunity from prosecution and eliciting information from her that no criminal charges had been filed against her clearly constituted

City of San Jose v. MediMarts, Inc.

1 Cal. App. 5th 842 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2016

Section 11362.775 of the program exempts from the same criminal statutes “qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification … For example, in Hale, supra, 201 U.S. at 76, the United States Supreme Court rejected a corporate officer’s reliance on the Fifth Amendment when, though given personal immunity, he was required by a grand jury to answer questions

Fry v. Saenz

120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 30 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2002

The courts have a duty to see that “the mandate of federal law is achieved” (ibid.), and statutes are no more immune to judicial scrutiny for ADA compliance than are rules or regulations. (Ibid.) … Taking the CalWORKs program as established by the Legislature, we see no basis to deny benefits to plaintiff Griffin on the ground her disabled child receives SSI.