Case law

James W. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO CTY.

17 Cal. App. 4th 246 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1993

Officials who receive reports may have qualified immunities under other statutes, said the court, but they are not entitled to the absolute immunity of section 11172, subdivision (a). (Newton v. … Whatever justifications exist for extending the immunity of the reporting act to forensic teams investigating whether a child has actually been abused, they are clearly not present here.

Cohen v. S & S CONSTRUCTION CO.

151 Cal. App. 3d 941 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1983

The immunity issue resolved, we proceed to consider the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ allegations against S & S. … But there are exceptions to this rule: “(1) where a party holds himself out to be specially qualified and the other party is so situated that he may reasonably rely upon the former’s superior knowledge; (2) where the opinion

O'HAGAN v. Board of Zoning Adjustment

38 Cal. App. 3d 722 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1974

Since under section 810.6 enactment means, among other things, ordinance or regulation, the revocation of the use permit was clearly authorized under section 821.2. … We hold that the specific immunities provided for the public entities and public employees in sections 818.4 and 821.2 take precedence over the liabilities established in Code of Civil Procedure section 1095.

Coburn v. Sievert

35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 596 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 10, 2005

The immunity associated with release at the end of the holding period is not qualified by the phrase “if the provisions of Section 5152 have been met.” … The Bragg case involved a clearly presented alternative motive for the early release—economic concerns based on the detainee’s lack of insurance.

County of San Diego v. Superior Court

242 Cal. App. 4th 460 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2015

Specifically, he argued the County was not immune based on exceptions to immunity for its failure to maintain the rope swing in good repair (§ 831.7, subd. … A " 'hazardous recreational activity' " is defined by a nonexclusive list of activities that qualify, including "tree rope swinging." (§ 831.7, subd. (b)(1)-(3); Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 154.)

City of Santa Cruz v. Superior Court

198 Cal. App. 3d 999 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 1988

Also, Gabrielsen does not hold himself out as qualified in the areas of fluvial mechanics, coastal processes, hydrology and geomorphology, nor does he claim expertise regarding the processes operating in the San Lorenzo River … Other decisions have noted that the legislative history of Government Code section 831.2 clearly shows the Legislature intended to preclude liability for unimproved natural conditions unless the public entity engaged *1007

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Superior Court

196 Cal. App. 4th 1263 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2011

While this language clearly provides greater protection for opinion work product than that provided for other work product, it “leaves room for argument that the immunity conferred on ‘hard-core’ work product is not absolute … Clearly, this language contains the same inherent ambiguities as in the current language, as it provides for absolute protection for “any writing” that reflects opinion work product and qualified protection for all other

McMartin v. Children's Institute International

212 Cal. App. 3d 1393 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 1989

care license is simply not a prerequisite for the shield of immunity provided by section 11172. … The first amendment proposed by defendants to their RICO cause of action clearly involves an act by the Manhattan Beach Police Department and does not meet any of the necessary criteria of mail fraud.

Ley v. State of California

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 20, 2004

Section 1618 immunity is neither limited nor qualified. It precludes civil liability against the state and the county for the criminal acts of persons committed or placed at CONREP facilities. … It neither authorizes a cause of action for damages nor establishes specific standards for removal of patients from CONREP. (Ibid.)

Shalabi v. Perniciaro CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2024

“[T]he qualified-immunity analysis asks whether the [constitutional] right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the violation. … Pelzer 536 U.S. 730, 741 [when “the law is clearly established,” case summaries are not necessary in a qualified immunity analysis].)

Ellis v. D'Angelo

116 Cal. App. 2d 310 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1953

“This general rule denying immunity must, however, be qualified in a number of respects. In many torts, the state of mind of the actor is an important element. … The only *320 allegation of knowledge by the parent was that the child was “disposed to climb about the furniture,” clearly not enough to show dangerous conduct. In Weber v.

In Re Courtney S.

130 Cal. App. 3d 567 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 13, 1982

Arthur appeared at the hearing, but invoked his immunity under the Fifth Amendment. … The trial court was obligated to "treat such an objection and declaration as conclusively establishing that an immunity order ... cannot be issued because it would or might unduly hamper criminal prosecution of the witness

People v. Rubio

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2019

That is, 7 officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless they have “violated a ‘clearly established’ right,” which means that in an appropriate case a court can enter … Questions of qualified immunity aside, Ryburn is also factually distinguishable.

Anderson v. City of Thousand Oaks

65 Cal. App. 3d 82 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1976

Examining the affidavits and counteraffidavits in the case at bench in light of these established rules, we must determine whether *88 respondent has met its burden of establishing its immunity from liability for injury caused … In our view, however, such an omission cannot as clearly be classified as a failure to consider an element of design.

Leon v. County of Riverside

California Court of Appeal · May 27, 2021

It establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd. … Indeed, because section 821.6 specifies that an employee is immune “even if he acts maliciously,” the immunity under the statute “clearly extends to proceedings which were not initiated out of a malicious intent, and thus

McDowell v. County of Alameda

88 Cal. App. 3d 321 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1979

Respondents assert that subdivision (b) is qualified by the proviso of subdivision (c), which only deals with the negligent infliction of injuries to the patient while under confinement, rather than injuries inflicted on … The intent of this section is to insure that public entities provide equipment which meets minimum standards established by statute or by departmental regulations.

People v. Sutter

134 Cal. App. 3d 806 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1982

district attorney was clearly within his statutory rights by refusing to grant Mayhew immunity as the decision to grant immunity is solely within his discretion. … Even though these cases arose in different contexts, I believe that they establish sufficient authority in California for judicially declared use immunity.

Gerkin v. Santa Clara Valley Water District

95 Cal. App. 3d 1022 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1979

As originally enacted in 1963, section 846 granted property owners qualified immunity from liability for injuries connected with “taking of fish and game, camping, water sports, hiking or sightseeing.” … While the plaintiff’s subjective intent will not be controlling, it is relevant to show purpose. *1028 The deposition testimony submitted by respondents in support of their motion establishes that appellant was either walking

Stockinger v. Feather River Community College

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 385 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2003

Defendants were immune from liability under section 87706 (see fn. 1, ante). … This case clearly falls in the latter category. Plaintiff cites case law allowing imposition of liability for off-school-premises injuries resulting from on-school-premises negligence.

McClintock v. West

219 Cal. App. 4th 540 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2013

Mueller (6th Cir. 1984) 732 F.2d 1456, 1458 [guardian ad litem “must act in the best interests of the [person] he represents [and s]uch a position clearly places him squarely within the judicial process”].) … Why would any qualified person ever accept appointment as a guardian ad litem when his or her decisions could be subject to such post hoc second guessing?