Case law

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.

Consolidated Accessories Corp. v. Franchise Tax Board

161 Cal. App. 3d 1036 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1984

” exceeding the limitations for immunity under Public Law Number 86-272. *1042 We disagree. … Consolidated has failed to affirmatively establish that it was immune from taxation under Public Law Number 86-272.

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

People v. Sipress

51 Cal. App. 3d 98 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 1975

Concluding that the record does not establish that Health and Safety Code section 11367 so completely immunized the witness from all possibility of prosecution as to foreclose the possibility that his answers to the questions … that it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circumstances in the case that an answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness.”

Universal By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto

43 Cal. App. 3d 145 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1974

Such a promise would be contrary to a well-established rule which allows a public body where it has expressly reserved the right to reject all bids, to do so for any reason and at any time before it accepts a bid. … Other statutory immunities are available to respondent.

Greenwood v. City of L.A.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2023

(the Act) “establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from [non- contractual] liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd. … Neither the statutory language nor case law interpreting it suggests a defendant must qualify for immunity under both section 855.4 subdivision (a) and section 855.4 subdivision (b) in order to be immune.

People v. Colvin

203 Cal. App. 4th 1029 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2012

Thus, even under a reading of section 11362.775 limiting transportation of marijuana only to cooperatives that cultivate it, then Colvin was entitled to the immunity. … primary caregiver who transports, processes, administers, delivers, or gives away marijuana for medical purposes, in amounts not exceeding those established in subdivision (a) of Section 11362.77, only to the qualified patient

People v. Superior Court (Crook)

83 Cal. App. 3d 335 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 1978

to comply with the statute in offering limited immunity however puts a great burden on the People to establish the extent of the immunity so offered. … Without regarding the effectiveness of the immunity allegedly offered to the Defendant in the instant case, the offer made by the prosecutor for the advantage of the accused would clearly lend itself as the motivating cause

Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill

177 Cal. App. 4th 1049 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2009

The City also claims that Tichinin’s concession that the City’s action qualifies for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute precludes him from making a prima facie showing because, as a matter of law, the City is immune … The City further implies that because its actions qualified for protection, it is immune from liability even if the purpose of its actions was to retaliate against Tichinin for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Rancho Publications v. Superior Court

81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 274 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 1999

Separate and apart from the shield law, there is a nonstatutory qualified immunity, grounded in the free speech and privacy provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, that limits what courts can compel … Superior Court, supra, 37 Cal.3d 268 [applying qualified constitutional immunity rather than shield law to allow newspersons to withhold identity of sources in defamation suit against them].)

Cosentino v. Fuller

California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 2015

Cosentino clearly alleges all claims against Defendants in their individual capacities on the theory Defendants abused and exceeded their official authority as members of the Gaming Commission, and therefore they are individually … The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the record failed to establish the defendants qualified as tribal officials or acted within the scope of their official authority.

Cosentino v. Fuller

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2015

The IGRA requires a tribe’s gaming ordinance to establish a licensing system for all “primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise.” … The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the record failed to establish the defendants qualified as tribal officials or acted within the scope of their official authority.

Cosentino v. Fuller

California Court of Appeal · May 28, 2015

The IGRA requires a tribe’s gaming ordinance to establish a licensing system for all “primary management officials and key employees of the gaming enterprise.” … The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the record failed to establish the defendants qualified as tribal officials or acted within the scope of their official authority.

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.

Arterberry v. County of San Diego

182 Cal. App. 4th 1528 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2010

Arterberry alleged the County, through the San Diego Regional Energy Office, offered significant rebates to private parties that install photovoltaic systems, and the “$7.8 million system planned by Farm ACW qualifies the … Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.’ ” (Lopez v. Southern Cal.

People v. Hochanadel

176 Cal. App. 4th 997 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2009

For example, unlike the CUA, which did not immunize medical marijuana users from arrest but instead provided a limited ‘immunity’ defense to prosecution under state law for cultivation or possession of marijuana [citation … We further conclude that while those who operate storefront dispensaries that qualify as true cooperatives or collectives may be immune from prosecution for the offenses listed in section 11362.775, and defendants may have

People v. Traylor

23 Cal. App. 3d 323 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 1972

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. III. … During the People’s rebuttal a police officer qualified as an expert on narcotics use was permitted, over defendant’s objections, to examine defendant for evidence of such use.

Arthur L. Sachs, Inc. v. City of Oceanside

151 Cal. App. 3d 315 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 1984

“No rule is more firmly established in this state than that which holds that the amendment of pleadings is within the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citations.] … We cannot agree with the trial court, because the delays were the direct result of the District counsel’s failure to deliver discovery items to which Sachs was clearly entitled.

Wang v. Nibbelink

4 Cal. App. 5th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 2016

, wanton, or criminal,’ so long as the statutory predicates for the immunity have been established.” … However, Valladares does not stand for the proposition plaintiffs press in this appeal, i.e., that only moments devoted exclusively to recreation qualify for immunity.

Mahler v. Judicial Council of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 2021

It “clearly [was] not an ad hoc decision,” as the court was not acting on “an individual application,” but “was creating a binding rule for all attorneys serving” as temporary judges, commissioners, and referees. … immunity from such relief.