Case law

People v. Mitchell

225 Cal. App. 4th 1189 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2014

Conway testified defendant would regularly spend time at the Barham Boulevard establishment. Mr. Conway testified defendant helped with the collective. Mr. … (Mentch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 283 [‘“For a person to be a qualified primary caregiver, he or she must be “designated” as such by a qualified patient, and must have “consistently assumed responsibility” for the qualified

People v. Aranda

188 Cal. App. 4th 1490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2010

It is not clearly established, however, that a trial court has the authority to grant such immunity even in furtherance of a criminal defendant's due process rights. … Aranda has not established each of these necessary elements. Here, the expected testimony was not clearly exculpatory or essential.

Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 14, 2006

Whether Agilent is immune from suit under the CDA There are three essential elements that a defendant must establish in order to claim section 230 immunity. … Upland Police Dept. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 934, 938 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 ] [summary judgment appropriate where the defendant establishes immunity defense].) 25 D.

Weinstein v. Department of Transportation

42 Cal. Rptr. 3d 417 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2006

Since defendant’s showing established that the signage was planned and installed in conformity with the state’s approved standards, defendant was entitled to design immunity. … While defendant bore the burden of establishing each element of its design immunity defense in support of its summary judgment motion, once defendant established its immunity, plaintiffs bore the burden of producing substantial

Gates v. Superior Court

32 Cal. App. 4th 481 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 15, 1995

Other commentators are in agreement that the Tort Claims Act immunities apply to liabilities established by other statutes. (Cal. … As we shall see, the Legislature clearly has not done so.” (48 Cal.3d at pp. 382-383.)

Tiedemann v. Superior Court

83 Cal. App. 3d 918 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1978

It is now well established in California case law that the privilege conferred under subdivision 2 is absolute and unaffected by the presence of malice. (Ascherman v. … qualify as a quasi-judicial agency regularly engaged in an “official proceeding authorized by law”; nor does Nair seriously contend otherwise.

Curcini v. County of Alameda

164 Cal. App. 4th 629 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2008

Appellants also contend the court erred in sustaining the demurrer as to their fraud causes of action, arguing that the complaint sufficiently alleges the requisite corruption and malice to overcome the qualified immunity … by appellants, and that the individual sheriff’s office employees were immune under Government Code sections 820.2 and 822.2, as appellants had failed to allege “facts to establish the elements of fraud or facts showing

Bergeron v. Boyd

223 Cal. App. 4th 877 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 4, 2014

As the defendant was clearly engaged in this latter activity, she is entitled to the protection of such quasi-judicial immunity.” (Howard, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at pp. 859-860.) … Consequently, the court held the undisputed facts did not establish the horse steward was entitled to the protection of quasi-judicial immunity if he committed a trespass to chattel.

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

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.

Conway v. County of Tuolumne

231 Cal. App. 4th 1005 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 24, 2014

discretionary immunity, consent was irrelevant. The trial court stated that the crux of the issue was discretionary immunity, which it found to be clearly present. … Relying primarily on Watts, the County asserts the gravamen of George’s complaint is the decision to use tear gas and contends that decision clearly was a discretionary one entitled to immunity.

O'NEIL v. Cunningham

118 Cal. App. 3d 466 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 1981

Perhaps it should not or perhaps there should be a qualified privilege. But these are policy questions that should be addressed to and resolved by the Legislature. … The statute as written clearly embraces the situation at hand. As the Supreme Court recently put it in People v.

Cross v. Tustin

165 Cal. App. 2d 146 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 14, 1958

This section, among other things, requires the board to establish qualifications for determining fitness of employees for each class of position; for temporary appointment and for applicants for examinations. … In doing this, they clearly were acting within the scope of their required duties.

Jasperson v. Jessica's Nail Clinic

216 Cal. App. 3d 1099 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1989

Statutes must be upheld unless their constitutionality clearly, positively and unmistakably appears. [Citations.]””’ … Clearly, the ordinance addresses a real and pressing concern.

Dole Citrus v. State of California

60 Cal. App. 4th 486 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1997

Royster (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 289, 306 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 73 ]: “In order for the state to establish design immunity as a defense, the state must show (1) A causal relationship between the plan and the accident; (2) discretionary … In summary, it is clear that the state presented sufficient evidence to establish the initial applicability of its design immunity defense, and Dole Citrus does not now contend otherwise. (Cameron v.

Amylou R. v. County of Riverside

28 Cal. App. 4th 1205 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1994

Thus, “[t]o establish liability of a public entity for the acts of its employee, the employee must have been acting within the ‘scope of employment.’ ” (Cal. … To the contrary, by specifying that the employee is immune “even if he acts maliciously,” the section clearly extends to proceedings which were not initiated out of a malicious intent, and thus would not constitute malicious

Flores v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Sep 15, 2022

In such cases, the courses must be competency-based, where each student demonstrates mastery of clearly specified learning outcomes. … As is clear from Penal Code section 13519.8, any “training guidelines” that are “established” pursuant to that provision are established through the POST Commission; Penal Code section 13519.8 does not itself establish its

Dwight R. v. Christy B.

212 Cal. App. 4th 697 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 2013

In contrast to mandated reporters, voluntary reporters—persons who voluntarily report known or suspected instances of child abuse or neglect—have qualified immunity from civil or criminal liability “as a result of any report … In granting Christy’s anti-SLAPP motion and striking the section 1983 claims against Christy, the trial court concluded that Christy established a complete affirmative defense to the section 1983 claims—her absolute immunity

Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco

47 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1996

Amici curiae cite no authority for such proposition, nor do they support the request with sufficient foundation to establish the credibility of the reports such that we could rely on them. 10 Second, we do not find these … The identity and qualifications of the author are not clearly spelled out, the purpose for which they were prepared is not clearly delineated nor is there any statement concerning the extent, if any, of the legislators’ reliance

Kabat v. Department of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2024

for injuries caused by qualifying preapproved plans or designs; and (3) section 830.8, which gives public entities limited signage immunity for injuries caused by the failure to provide certain traffic signals, signs, markings … First, Caltrans met its initial burden of establishing the defense of design immunity (§ 830.6), but Plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of material fact in opposition.