Case law

Paddleford v. Biscay

22 Cal. App. 3d 139 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1971

were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their jurisdiction. … We are constrained to comment that the existence of the defense of judicial immunity does not condone a procedure so clearly contrary to Penal Code section 840. The judgment is affirmed.

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

McCauley v. City of San Diego

190 Cal. App. 3d 981 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 30, 1987

The facts underlying Gonzales are clearly distinguishable from those we confront here. … Preliminarily, “[s]ection 815 establishes sovereign immunity in this state except as provided in the Tort Claims Act or other statute. [Citations.]” (Gonzales v.

Aronson v. Kinsella

58 Cal. App. 4th 254 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 10, 1997

The bare possibility that the proceeding might be instituted is not to be used as a cloak to provide immunity for defamation when the possibility is not seriously considered.” … It has been stated that “ ‘The distinction between absolute and qualified privileges is essentially that an absolute privilege confers immunity regardless of motive while a qualified privilege can be lost if the defendant

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

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

State of California v. Superior Court

86 Cal. App. 3d 475 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1978

The California Supreme Court, in abrogating the common law rule of governmental immunity, observed that “ ‘when there is negligence, the rule is liability, immunity is the exception.’ ” (Baldwin v. … Proc., § 352); Gottesman involved an action to recover personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision; Van Buskirk was an action seeking to establish paternity.

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.

Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board

247 Cal. App. 4th 284 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2016

The Board‘s position is clearly correct. As the United States Supreme Court held in Will v. … In personal capacity actions, personal immunity defenses apply, such as various forms of absolute and qualified immunity. (Id. at pp. 166–167; see Pierce v.

DeAryan v. Butler

119 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1953

The Director of Public Health must be *681 fully qualified in this field. (§§ 101 and 107.) … the State of California or that by reason of the facts established the ordinance is in the respects indicated unconstitutional.

People v. Tilehkooh

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 226 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2003

immunity under section 11362.5. … Similarly, California courts should not enforce federal marijuana law for probationers who qualify for the immunity provided by section 11362.5. The court held to the contrary in People v.

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

181 Cal. App. 4th 218 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2010

Section 820.8 immunizes public employees from liability for injuries caused by another. 8 Section 821.6 establishes that “[a] public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial … Code, § 820.6 qualified immunity protected against Civ. Code, § 52.1 claims].) O’Toole examined Civil Code section 52.1 and “found no indication the Legislature intended to create an exception to the general rule.

Bohrer v. County of San Diego

104 Cal. App. 3d 155 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 2, 1980

Absent a special statute, there is no authority for the court to take judicial notice of a conclusion of suicide from a governmental document to establish the cause of death (Thinguldstad v. … The standards set forth by the first two elements clearly preclude the plaintiff from any inclusion within the zone of forseeability.

Bitner v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation

California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2023

. . . that simply establishes a general legal duty or liability. … duty of care has been established.

Harb v. City of Bakersfield

233 Cal. App. 4th 606 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2015

(police immunity) and part IV.A. … Analysis of Ambiguity We conclude the police immunity instruction was ambiguous because it did not clearly indicate when the immunity applied and when it did not apply.

Rotolo v. San Jose Sports & Entertainment, LLC

59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 770 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2007

As initially enacted, Civil Code section 1714.21 provided a qualified immunity for any person who in good faith rendered emergency care by the use of an AED at the scene of an emergency, so long as the person had completed … An assistant manager of the establishment called for an ambulance but did not attempt to give first aid.

Slosberg v. Municipal Court

101 Cal. App. 2d 238 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1950

It is possible, though it does not clearly appear, that some of the same property may be included in both; but whether or not that is so, it is clear that both actions involve the general subject of property of the decedent—each … The rule before us is not established by statute, thus requiring construction of specific words, but by the courts themselves as a matter of public policy.

Joannou v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

219 Cal. App. 4th 746 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2013

Immunity was necessary in order to encourage local public entities to take remedial action to alleviate the hazards of such earth movements. (Ibid., italics added.) … Second, the type of earth movements that qualify as disasters under the Emergency Services Act are in the same temporal category as earthquakes.

Meester v. Davies

11 Cal. App. 3d 342 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1970

This purpose, of course, was clearly within the scope of the official duties of the school defendants and within the protection of the immunity rule. … California, supra, rejected the Hand postulate as a ground of immunity, establishing a new criterion, namely, that the public employee does not have immunity unless the act is one of policy making, sometimes designated “planning