Case law

Pierce v. San Mateo County Sheriff's Department

232 Cal. App. 4th 995 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 31, 2014

” (Hafer, supra, 502 U.S. at p. 29)) or “qualified immunity.” … Haugen (2004) 543 U.S. 194, 198–201 [160 L.Ed.2d 583, 125 S.Ct. 596] [officer who shot fleeing felon entitled to qualified immunity]; Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at pp. 203–209 [arresting officer entitled to qualified immunity

Arce v. Childrens Hospital Los Angeles

211 Cal. App. 4th 1455 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 2012

Thus, Congress clearly intended to authorize immunity for reporters in order to encourage more extensive reporting. … Under section 1983, government officials are generally entitled to “qualified immunity,” which “shields [them] from liability for civil damages if (1) the law governing the official’s conduct was clearly established; and

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. Nestdrop, LLC

245 Cal. App. 4th 664 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2016

Such a prohibition in no way threatens the continued existence of those medical marijuana businesses that qualify for limited immunity. … After explaining that Proposition D will ban all medical marijuana businesses unless they qualify for immunity, and after summarizing the conditions for immunity, the impartial summary describes the specific exemptions from

Pyne v. Meese

172 Cal. App. 3d 392 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1985

Under the Harlow test, Black and Hurd did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional rights and are thus immune from liability. … Once again, we must apply the Harlow test to determine whether a qualified immunity exists.

CHABAK v. Monroy

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 10, 2007

This immunity is absolute for mandated reporters and qualified for other individuals who report child abuse (voluntary reporters). … Monroy’s statements to the police clearly arose from protected activity, as is established by the case on which Chabak, and ultimately the trial court, relied.

Bakos v. Roach

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2025

Defendants cross-appeal, challenging the trial court’s conclusion that they lack qualified immunity. … entitlement to qualified immunity.

Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society

45 Cal. App. 4th 163 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1996

would violate a clearly established constitutional *178 or statutory right. … Further, an officer’s unreasonable ignorance that he has violated a clearly established right does not save his claim of qualified immunity. (Gilker v. Baker (9th Cir. 1978) 576 F.2d 245, 247 ; Coleman v.

Weaver v. State of California

63 Cal. App. 4th 188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1998

Defendants also asserted immunity under the qualified immunity doctrine, alleging that they are shielded from liability unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … was reasonable and that the qualified immunity doctrine applied.”

Kaur v. Dual Arch International

California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2024

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by Kachlon, we conclude that the immunity provided by section 2924, subdivision (d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47, subdivision (c). … The malice required to defeat section 47 qualified immunity is “ ‘actual malice.’ ” (Taus, at p. 721.; King v. U.S.

Turner v. Martire

99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2000

are immune unless their conduct violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … Scope of authority In addition to establishing that they qualify as tribal officials for immunity purposes, defendants must satisfy the second requirement for tribal official immunity, i.e., that the official must have acted

Murchison v. County of Tehama

California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2021

violated clearly established law. … Payday California, Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1433, fn. 6), and “we may consider such decisions when determining whether a constitutional right was clearly established for purposes of our qualified immunity analysis

Kirby v. County of Fresno

242 Cal. App. 4th 940 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2015

County contends that the CUA and the MMP provide a limited immunity from prosecution under state statutes, but provide no immunity from prosecution pursuant to a local law such as County’s. … The provision clearly states that such possession must be “consistent with this article”—that is, consistent with the MMP.

Allgoewer v. City of Tracy

207 Cal. App. 4th 755 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 5, 2012

a prima facie case.’ ” Defendants also argued that nonsuit should be granted to the officers based on qualified immunity because they “would not have been aware of a clearly established constitutional right at the time of … According to defendants, “[t]wo Ninth Circuit panels have concluded that the law regarding Tasers was not sufficiently established to warrant denying qualified immunity” and because “an officer in Officer Mejia’s position

Guillory v. Hill

233 Cal. App. 4th 240 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 2015

Defense counsel suggested below that no “clearly established law . . . says that the term search has to exclude the interviews” (italics added), and counsel similarly invokes qualified immunity on appeal because “there … And while “the right the official is alleged have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ . . . , [t]his is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question

County of Butte v. Superior Court

175 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 1, 2009

In those situations, the law clearly contemplates the destruction of the subject marijuana. ...[][] But neither of those circumstances exist here. … The Supreme Court in Mower determined the Act does not afford qualified medical marijuana patients a complete immunity from arrest because of their status as patients.

Julian v. Mission Community Hospital

11 Cal. App. 5th 360 · California Court of Appeal · May 2, 2017

Qualified immunity, however, “shields public officers from section 1983 actions unless the officer has violated a clearly established constitutional right” (Mendoza v. … ‘If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established,’ then the qualified immunity inquiry ends. [Citation.]

Casey N. v. County of Orange

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2022

“Government employees generally are shielded by qualified immunity ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To determine whether qualified immunity applies, the court makes a two-pronged inquiry: (1) has a constitutional right been violated, and (2) was that right clearly established at the time of the defendant’s alleged misconduct

Garcia v. American Golf Corp.

11 Cal. App. 5th 532 · California Court of Appeal · May 3, 2017

Even if the walkway qualifies as a trail, City is not entitled to trail immunity. … These cases pertain to whether a particular path qualifies as a trail for purposes of trail immunity. Neither case analyzes a causation issue similar to the one herein. V.

McAlexander v. Siskiyou Joint Community College

222 Cal. App. 3d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1990

In the present case, we find the omission of language limiting immunity to liability for acts at the scene of an emergency in section 1799.100 clearly reflects the Legislature’s intention not to limit immunity to third party … In each of the foregoing sections immunity is qualified by a requirement that immunity shall not apply if the acts are not performed in good faith, or are performed in a grossly negligent manner.

Stanley Brumer v. City of Los Angeles

24 Cal. App. 4th 983 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1994

Appellants contend: (1) the policy does not qualify under the statute unless approved by either the police commission or the city council; (2) a public entity loses the statutory immunity if a plaintiff can prove, at trial … The answer filed by the city and the officers alleged, “these Defendants are immune from liability . ...” A clearly stated affirmative defense needs no citation to statutory authority to be well pleaded.