Case law

Cochran v. Herzog Engraving Co.

155 Cal. App. 3d 405 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 11, 1984

This legislative statement clearly underscores the important reasons of public policy which support the broad scope of this immunity. (Clayton v. City of Sunnyvale, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at pp. 670-671.) … City of Modesto (1966) 64 Cal.2d 229 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 411 P.2d 105 ], that these statutes establish governmental immunity under the facts of this case.

Hartt v. County of Los Angeles

197 Cal. App. 4th 1391 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2011

. *1394 “The Plaintiffs remaining cause of action for negligence was also doomed by the exclusion of photographic evidence that clearly established Miller’s wanton lack of due care that lead to the death of Plaintiffs decedent … Expert Miller is qualified in the field of human factors: how motorists will react, their perception/ reaction time, and their accident avoidance.

Lucchesi v. City of San Jose

104 Cal. App. 3d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1980

grade of at least 80% before Veterans’ preference to qualify for promotional eligible list. … [H] (b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

People v. DeFreitas

140 Cal. App. 3d 835 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1983

The court then pointed out (id., p. 148) that: “The trial court must [in cases such as this, treat the prosecutor’s express objection to immunity] as conclusively establishing that an immunity order . . . cannot be issued … Clearly a legislature can react differently to the probable motives of a prosecutor who requests immunity, and those of a defendant in a criminal case.” (People v. Traylor, supra, 23 Cal.App.3d 323, 332 .)

Montenegro v. City of Bradbury

215 Cal. App. 4th 924 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 2013

Governmental Immunity for Recreational Trails A public entity is generally liable for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition … City of Los Angeles (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1097, 1103 [“design and use” control whether area qualifies as recreational trail].)

Finch Aerospace Corp. v. City of San Diego

8 Cal. App. 5th 1248 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 2017

Among other arguments, the City asserted it is absolutely immune from liability under section 818.8. … Swift Distribution, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 277, 294 (Hartford).) 7 not Lancair's leasehold, the statement did not clearly implicate Finch or Finch's property.

Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital District

224 Cal. App. 3d 311 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1990

bylaw was a legislative act; second, that they are qualifiedly immune since their actions did not violate a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have been aware; third, they are immune … As to the violation of section 3203, the hospital, its board and administrator are clearly immune from damages.

420 Caregivers v. City of LA

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2013

The individuals to whom this immunity applies are expanded beyond the patients and primary caregivers protected by the predecessor CUA: the MMPA grants immunity to (1) qualified patients, persons with identification cards … The Legislature‟s specific inclusion of “establishment” in both the amendment to Health and Safety Code section 11362.83 and new section 11362.768 is not insignificant: the plain meaning of “establishment” clearly expresses

Ascherman v. Natanson

23 Cal. App. 3d 861 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1972

She would have qualified as, and in fact was, a potential witness. Moreover, respondent’s testimony at the hearing encompassed everything discussed during the interview. … Since his actual testimony, notwithstanding that it could be heard or later read by anyone is clearly insulated by the absolute privilege, it follows that his statements during the interview are also fully protected, and

Gunsul v. Ray

6 Cal. App. 2d 528 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1935

The defendant contends that “When the facts clearly constitute a privileged communication, even though the language employed under other circumstances might be slanderous per se, the very privilege creates a presumption that … We recognize no rule of public policy which would give to a citizen actuated by malice a greater immunity from suits for libel in cases arising out of recall elections than in cases arising out of ordinary elections.

Bane v. State of California

208 Cal. App. 3d 860 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1989

We conclude that although the state established the necessary elements of a design immunity for the 1984 changes at the intersection, the immunity ended before the subject accident occurred because of the state’s failure … The purpose behind the signature requirement is to establish accountability.

Allos v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2025

The Act “ ‘establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from [noncontractual] liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd. … None of these facts establish a qualifying disability within the meaning of FEHA.

People v. Cooke

16 Cal. App. 4th 1361 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1993

Smith, supra, 615 F.2d 964, 972 ): “ ‘[T]he opportunities for judicial use of this immunity power must be clearly limited; ... the proffered testimony must be clearly exculpatory; the testimony must be essential; and there … question we do not decide—the record establishes that the circumstances were not appropriate here . . .

Rodas v. Spiegel

87 Cal. App. 4th 513 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2001

Both clearly stated what they covered. … Inasmuch as preparation of that estimate does not qualify as an intentional falsehood, it does not qualify as malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

Randle v. City and County of San Francisco

186 Cal. App. 3d 449 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1986

Rules established in somewhat different contexts militate in favor of hearing the present appeal. … Briggs (1986) 475 U.S. 335 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 271, 277 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1095 ] [qualified immunity for police officers seeking arrest warrants]; Tower v.

Wilson v. County of San Joaquin

California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2019

Reversing the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal first noted it was required to interpret section 850.4 to allow for liability unless “the Legislature has clearly intended immunity.” … To 12 that end, a qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services.” (Health & Saf.

Kayfetz v. State of California

156 Cal. App. 3d 491 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1984

Further, the “Action Report” publication was authorized as part of the statutory scheme and was clearly “within the scope of [defendant’s] employment,” within the meaning of section 821.6. … Because we find that the defendants are immune from suit for the action in question, we need not decide other issues raised by the parties, principally whether Civil Code section 47 grants absolute, qualified or any privilege

Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton

California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2025

As relevant here, the court held that the City was not statutorily immune from suit. … City is entitled to immunity.

Begier v. Strom

46 Cal. App. 4th 877 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1996

App.4th at pages 616-617, the court cited a string of precedent cases holding that a communication designed to initiate a criminal prosecution qualifies for immunity as a publication "in any other official proceeding authorized … However, only qualified immunity is granted to persons who are not statutorily obligated to make a report: "Any other person reporting a known or suspected instance of child abuse shall not incur civil or criminal liability

Lawson v. Superior Court

180 Cal. App. 4th 1372 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2010

Thus, the Tort Claims Act “establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from liability except as provided by statute ([Gov. Code,] § 815, subd. … the State’s liability for whatever negligence Esperanza establishes as to Center Point.