Case law

Presta v. Tepper

179 Cal. App. 4th 909 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2009

Thus what the statute actually provides is that to the extent a “trust” qualifies as a “legal or commercial entity,” it could also qualify as a “person” capable of forming a partnership. … Consequently, the opening paragraph of each agreement clearly identifies the partners as the men, rather than the trusts.

Frisk v. Merrihew

42 Cal. App. 3d 319 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 1974

A school superintendent or secretary of a school board is clearly outside the above-defined cabinet level state officials. … General Telephone Co. of California (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 841 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 582 ] dealt with the issue of qualified privilege accorded under section 47, subdivision 3, while Thornton v.

Gibson v. City of Pasadena

83 Cal. App. 3d 651 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 9, 1978

if liability can be established under the provisions of another section.” … This is clearly a discretionary decision and consequently immune. In the case at bench, plaintiff has alleged negligence in the actual pursuit.

State of California v. Superior Court

87 Cal. App. 4th 1409 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2001

City of Fairfield, supra, 44 Cal.App.3d at page 714 , demonstrates that acts or omissions related to firefighting are immune even if no “equipment” or “facilities” are involved, and holds that the statutes “establish immunity … The referenced provisions of the Vehicle Code establish a qualified immunity for injuries resulting from the operation of emergency vehicles (fire and police) and are not applicable to this case.

Buford v. State of California

104 Cal. App. 3d 811 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1980

(Id., at pp. 481-482.) 5 It is clearly established that duty is a question of law, while foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury. (See Weirum v. … Since escape immunity is inapplicable to Daniels’ situation, we consider whether other immunity provisions insulate State from liability.

Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos

210 Cal. App. 4th 1435 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2012

[f] (3) If a corporation, or any other combination or organization, it shall qualify by the appearance of a responsible managing officer or responsible managing employee who is qualified for the same license classification … ’s license while acting in the capacity of a qualifying individual pursuant to this section.”

In re Internet Lending Cases

California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 2020

“Put simply, a state may claim immunity from suit in federal court and must be dismissed from the litigation unless there exists one of two well-established exceptions. … According to Rosas, by agreeing to assume CLK’s liabilities, AMG “ ‘clearly contemplated suits’ and thereby waived any immunity it otherwise would have had.”

Falls v. Superior Court

42 Cal. App. 4th 1031 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 20, 1996

Judicial immunity “ ‘Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction .... … The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” (Imbler v.

Stasz v. Schwab

17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 2004

This rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California.” (Moore v. … (Note, Redefining Arbitral Immunity: A Proposed Qualified Immunity Statute for Arbitrators (1993) 44 Hastings L.J. 421 , 430 (hereafter Note), fn. omitted.)

Tur v. City of Los Angeles

51 Cal. App. 4th 897 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 17, 1996

Despite the fact section 821.6 clearly applies to actions for malicious prosecution, plaintiff convinced the trial court not to instruct the jury under that section but instead to instruct the jury defendants’ immunity, if … The day before trial started, the issue was argued again and the court ruled “the issue before this jury” will be “whether or not you can establish that which you have to establish in order to satisfy 822.2 . . . .”

Howard v. Drapkin

222 Cal. App. 3d 843 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 1990

As the defendant was clearly engaged in this latter activity, she is entitled to the protection of such quasi-judicial immunity. 2. … However, both federal and California courts look to the act performed by the defendant to determine if it qualifies for judicial (or quasi-judicial) immunity.

Gonzales v. City of San Diego

130 Cal. App. 3d 882 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 1982

Moreover, “[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by wilful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v. … City’s Potential Liability Can Be Predicated Upon Section 835 Section 815 3 establishes sovereign immunity in this state except as provided in the Tort Claims Act or other statute. (Williams v.

Burchett v. City of Newport Beach

33 Cal. App. 4th 1472 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 1995

And, claim the Burchetts, the federal tort causes of action are not subject to this immunity. … “This is an ordinary dispute between a developer and a municipality and we conclude that the claims asserted simply do not qualify as deprivations of substantive due process.”

Zuniga v. Housing Authority

41 Cal. App. 4th 82 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 1995

The claim of immunity is an affirmative defense and the facts alleged in the complaint do *99 not, on their face, establish the existence of this claimed immunity. Unlike Caldwell v. … Therefore, a factual issue exists as to which appellants may qualify to bring claims for emotional distress.

Salasguevara v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

222 Cal. App. 3d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 1990

One of the grounds for rejection was that it lacked the requisite foundational facts to qualify the doctor to testify about the standard of care. … While it is true that expert testimony is required to establish negligence in a medical malpractice case, Landeros v.

State of California v. Superior Court

37 Cal. App. 3d 1023 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1974

[Rjeal parties in interest, although recognizing that there is immunity for discretionary acts of [the county’s] employees . . . , contend that there is no immunity with respect to ministerial acts and that the alleged acts … Since all of American’s alleged causes of action clearly fall within that ambit, a writ of prohibition as prayed for is hereby granted. Gardner, P. J., and Kaufman, J., concurred.

Eastburn v. REGIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AUTH.

119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2002

[A] qualified immunity from liability shall be provided for public entities and emergency rescue personnel providing emergency services. "(b) ... … But where those services are instituted under the aegis of a fire protection agency, the qualified immunity of section 1799.107 applies.

Haytasingh v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2021

For example, one of the bill’s descriptions provided that “Assembly Bill No. 555, ‘by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty to keep its land safe for certain recreational users.’ (Sen. … These statutory provisions are simply not similar; section 831.7 clearly provides far broader immunity than Civil Code section 846.11 11 While the immunity in section 831.7 is limited to hazardous recreational activities

County of Los Angeles v. Hill

192 Cal. App. 4th 861 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2011

Among other things, it provides that qualified patients and their primary caregivers have limited immunity from prosecution for violation of various sections of the Health and Safety Code regulating marijuana including the … , dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider.” (§ 11362.768, subds.

Mosby v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 2003

With regard to the mechanics of payment, the mishandling was clearly within the exclusivity rule. Thus the doctors could not state abuse of process claims. … Co. v. *1005 Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 867, 872 [ 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 211 ] [“There is no question that section 1877.5 limits the immunity it establishes to reports made without malice.”].)