Case law

Trinkle v. California State Lottery

84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 496 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1999

The statute’s purpose is clearly not to safeguard the profits of gaming operators such as Trinkle who compete with CSL. Section 815.6 does not apply. … This section establishes the principle that a public entity may be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the acts of its employee if such acts are not otherwise immune from liability. (Cal.

Brassinga v. City of Mountain View

77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 660 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1998

As we have already discussed, the evidence presented below established that the Regional Team did not qualify as an “employer” under Labor Code section 3300. … The Regional Team was not shown to be an entity that could qualify as an employer, and the evidence presented in support of Acton’s motion did not establish as a matter of law that Mountain View was Brassinga’s special employer

DeCelle v. City of Alameda

221 Cal. App. 2d 528 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1963

Under such circumstances, they have clearly waived their right to rely upon Code of Civil Procedure, section 343. … Respondent would clearly have qualified for a pension under that ordinance.

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.

People v. Anderson

232 Cal. App. 4th 1259 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2015

He assumed he would reimburse Anderson for costs when the co-op was established. … “To establish the collective/cooperative defense, a defendant must show: “One: Qualified patients have associated within the State of California in order, collectively or cooperatively, to cultivate

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.

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?

Park v. Walsh

82 Cal. App. 379 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1927

and testament was duly admitted to probate in the superior court of California in and for the city and county of San Francisco, following which letters testamentary thereon were issued to respondent Walsh, who is now the qualified … App. 674 [ 113 Pac. 126, 130 ], It was held in the cases cited that under the facts shown a duty created by the laws of another state may be enforced by mandate; but it clearly appears from the following decisions of the

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

Cornette v. Department of Transportation

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 733 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 2000

It is true that several cases state that all of the statutory elements necessary to establish design immunity are legal issues for the court to decide. (See, e.g., Alvarez v. State of California, supra, 79 Cal. … As the record before us clearly reflects, and as the trial court expressly stated (and Caltrans does not dispute), that is not the case here.

Harshbarger v. City of Colton

197 Cal. App. 3d 1335 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1988

Additionally, section 815, subdivision (b) states “[t]he liability of a public entity established by this part... is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute . . . .’’As the legislative comment to … required that construction be inspected periodically, and voluntarily (a) assumed the duty to ensure construction complied with codes, (b) employed inspectors to inspect said construction, and (c) assumed the duty of hiring qualified

Acres v. Marston

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2021

Fitzsimmons (1993) 509 U.S. 259, 268 [“Most public officials are entitled only to qualified immunity.”].) … Respondents never clearly explain why Ramsey is entitled to judicial immunity, other than to note that she is an associate judge of the tribal court.

Freeny v. City of San Buenaventura

216 Cal. App. 4th 1333 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2013

On appeal, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing error. (San Mateo, supra, at p. 426 .) I. … By contrast, reading section 822.2’s exception for misrepresentations motivated by actual fraud, corruption or actual malice as not qualifying the tort immunity that otherwise attaches to legislators’ policymaking decisions

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.

Hancock v. Burns

158 Cal. App. 2d 785 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1958

because the lower court, having taken judicial notice of certain facts which, when read with the complaint, disclose the following defenses: absolute privilege for legislative acts within the sphere of legislative authority ; qualified … While Senate Resolution Number 127 does not, nor could it, authorize the commission of a tortious act, nevertheless, it does establish a committee of the state Senate authorized to act as an official adjunct of that body.

Ronald S. v. County of San Diego

16 Cal. App. 4th 887 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 17, 1993

These activities, unlike those possibly within the scope of the Elton pleading, clearly fall within the ambit of discretionary action. … The foreseeability of damage by the omission, through negligent investigation, to uncover facts which would lead to the conclusion that adoptive parents are not qualified, is much more easily identified.

Whiteley v. Philip Morris, Inc.

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 807 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2004

The parties and the court below described Cipollone as presenting a continuum ranging from claims clearly preempted by the Act at one end and claims clearly not preempted at the other. … “Generally, the burden falls on the plaintiff to establish causation. [Citation.] ...

Cuenca v. Safeway San Francisco Employees Federal Credit Union

180 Cal. App. 3d 985 · California Court of Appeal · May 13, 1986

If such malice was established, its existence would vitiate the qualified privilege which we find otherwlse^irotecls the alleged defamation. … We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with an improper motive.

Siam v. Kizilbash

31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 368 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2005

The issue in Hagberg was whether statements made to law enforcement personnel about suspected criminal activity are subject to the qualified privilege of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c), which grants immunity for certain … The trial court clearly denied defendant’s motion because it found plaintiff’s evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

VALLEY ADVOCATES v. City of Fresno

72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 2008

His work as an architect on the proposed project established that he was familiar with the Flats. … In contrast, the parties in this case clearly dispute whether the fair argument standard should apply.