Case law

Save Our Skyline v. Board of Permit Appeals

60 Cal. App. 3d 512 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1976

behalf of the Board before the trial court did concede, albeit reluctantly, that the Board had authority to disapprove a permit issued pursuant to its order, and the contention that the Board’s review was not de novo is clearly … At most, therefore, the lawful issuance of a permit by the bureau can confer a conditional immunity, hardly the kind of shield contemplated by a statute designed to fix the rights of a permittee upon a certain date.”

Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.

17 Cal. 4th 553 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 1998

Our previous pronouncements make plain a private party has no privilege or immunity to employ illegal means to obtain evidence for a lawsuit. (See Kimmel v. … Accordingly, we decline Lucky’s invitation judicially to categorize potential plaintiffs as qualified or unqualified to maintain UCL claims on behalf of the general public.

Quinn v. U.S. Bank NA

196 Cal. App. 4th 168 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 2011

And, as impliedly amended by Title VII and the ADEA, section 24, Fifth, bestows a qualified immunity from liability arising from its exercise, allowing only specified relief, with limits and/or bars against compensatory and … And it bestows an immunity from liability arising from its exercise, qualified to allow only specified relief, with limits and/or bars against compensatory and/or punitive damages. [Fn. omitted.]” (Id. at p. 172.)

Sarun v. Dignity Health

California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2015

However, uninsured patients may be able to qualify for government programs or financial assistance. … To satisfy Proposition 64 a plaintiff “must now establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of

In Re Graves

64 Cal. App. 176 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1923

The acts charged against Judge Monroe would, if true, clearly constitute misuse of his judicial office and misconduct in office. … When the facts heretofore recounted had been placed before the trial court a prima facie case against the accused was established.

Flowmaster, Inc. v. Superior Court

16 Cal. App. 4th 1019 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1993

The employer should then be treated as any third party tortfeasor, not immune from a common law tort action. [Citations.]” (Bell v. … Plaintiff is relegated to proof of “failure to install” by Flowmaster to establish his cause of action under section 4558.

People v. Gonzalez

246 Cal. App. 4th 1358 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 2016

does not necessarily establish that he or she is an accomplice.”].) … The accomplice instruction, as given, clearly stated that the corroborating evidence must be “independent of the accomplice’s testimony.”

Liquid Chemical Corp. v. Department of Health Services

227 Cal. App. 3d 1682 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 1991

The court stated “This matter involves an issue of sovereign immunity,” noting that the United States Government cannot be sued without its consent. … The court disagreed, noting: “[DHS] clearly has independent jurisdiction over plaintiff’s facility and operations.

Fost v. Superior Court

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 620 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 2000

As our Supreme Court emphasized in Miller , “[t]he shield law is, by its own terms, absolute rather than qualified in immunizing a newsperson from contempt for revealing unpublished information obtained in the news-gathering … assertion of established evidentiary privileges against the prosecution would be a violation.

Martinez v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co.

13 Cal. Rptr. 3d 857 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2004

Clearly, where a vehicle’s undamaged fair market value is lower than the cost of repairs, it would be wasteful to repair it. A comparable vehicle could be purchased for less money. … Moreover, whether the vehicle qualifies as such is established by objective standards. The retail value can be obtained from a widely accepted source such as the Kelley Blue Book.

People v. Johnson

153 Cal. App. 2d 564 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 1957

On direct examination Hilliard qualified as an expert on narcotics. … Having qualified as an expert, Hilliard was qualified to testify about what he had observed and learned during the tests.

Duarte v. Zachariah

22 Cal. App. 4th 1652 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 1994

This evidence shows that the change in Duarte’s bone marrow was an appreciable functional impairment of the immune system. … Nor does it mean that emotional distress must always be established by direct evidence of the plaintiff’s mental state.

Monroe v. Yurosek Farms CA5

California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 2014

Two elements must be established as a precondition for recreational use immunity. First, the defendant must be the owner of an estate or any other possessory or nonpossessory interest in real property. … To prove misconduct, it is not necessary to establish that the defendant recognized its conduct as dangerous.

T.L. v. City Ambulance of Eureka, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2022

Accordingly, “ ‘in the absence of a statutory provision establishing an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714, courts should create one only where “clearly supported by public policy.” ’ ” (Kesner, at p … Code, § 856.2 [public entities and employees immune from liability for injury to or death of escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness].)

People v. Avas

144 Cal. App. 2d 91 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1956

The above is but a partial extract of 1,730 pages of transcript, but clearly establishes an agreement of MacKenzie *97 and Jones to obtain bribes, and the success of the plan of action adopted by them in the transactions … Unlike the last cited liquor cases we have here immunity given one of the conspirators and direct evidence by her of the essential elements of the charges.

People v. Superior Court (Jans)

224 Cal. App. 3d 1405 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1990

We look first to the language of the statute; where the language clearly and unambiguously expresses the intent of the Legislature we need go no further. (Ibid.) … If the statute is not so interpreted, arguably segments of the population could become immune to the reach of the California courts in their criminal proceedings.

Beverly Hills Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Superior Court

259 Cal. App. 2d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1968

Within a year, the court disavowed the trial de novo concept advanced in the Laisne ease and substituted a more qualified form of review in *314 its decision in Dare v. … both legislative and judicial to clarify and settle the law in this area have been and will be substantially frustrated until the Supreme Court, in recognition of the erosion of the foundation of the Standard Oil case, clearly

Knapp v. City of Newport Beach

186 Cal. App. 2d 669 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1960

Public Officers’ Immunity The ruling of the trial court refusing to receive further evidence on Knapp’s complaint charging conspiracy was correct. … This purpose was clearly within the scope of the official duties of Officers and City, and falls squarely within the governmental immunity rule already firmly established by the decisions in this state. (Hardy v.

Black v. Department of Mental Health

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 39 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 11, 2000

“Thus, the ADA and its attendant regulations clearly define unnecessary segregation as a form of illegal discrimination against the disabled.” ( 46 F.3d at p. 333 , fn. omitted.) … It was, instead, merely identifying the outer limits of a state’s duties under the integration mandate, not establishing new ones.

McMahon v. Superior Court

130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 2003

The order set a trial date of April 14, 2003, and established dates and deadlines for various pretrial matters. … “Accordingly, the activities of one branch of government are not immune from regulation or oversight by another branch. [Citation.] One branch may take actions that significantly affect another branch. [Citations.]