Case law

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.

People v. Superior Court (Taylor)

53 Cal. App. 3d 996 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1975

defendant. *1001 Kaufman established that the trial court has “jurisdiction” to grant immunity to a defendant in a civil proceeding. … Under section 1324, discussed in Kaufman ( 12 Cal.3d at p. 426 ), the court is required to “order the question answered or the evidence produced unless it finds that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest

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.

Valdez v. Percy

35 Cal. App. 2d 485 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 1939

The importance of the laboratory test and' the measure of guidance it furnishes the operating physician is established by the testimony of defendant Dr. Percy as follows: “Q. … It is firmly established as the law that where a person has been subjected to an operation without his consent such an operation constitutes technical assault and battery. (Hively v.

McGee v. Tucoemas Federal Credit Union

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2007

These exceptions were not established by appellants. Accordingly, the trial court correctly concluded that appellants were not immune from the punitive damage award. … Since appellants have failed to clearly show the applicability of an exception to this waiver presumption, sovereign immunity does not apply. 2.

Tarpy v. County of San Diego

1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2003

Tarpy’s father was willing to pay what he believed was a $120 fee, but Officer Wix encouraged him to claim Luke from the animal shelter for $45; Officer Wix neglected to mention, however, that Luke would only qualify for … Immunity under Section 30804.7 Section 30804.7 establishes mandatory fines for impounded dogs that are not spayed or neutered and specifies that funds collected from the fines are to be expended for humane education, programs

La Serena Properties, LLC v. Weisbach

186 Cal. App. 4th 893 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 2010

cause of action claimed violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and alleged that *900 AAA engaged in false and misleading advertising by advertising to the public that it maintains a panel of “qualified … This rule—immunizing arbitrators in private contractual arbitration proceedings from tort liability—is well established in California.’ (Moore v.

Adkins v. State of California

50 Cal. App. 4th 1802 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 1996

On the contrary, the Food and Agricultural Code clearly requires full disclosure. (Food & Agr. … ‘Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 867.)

Vedder v. County of Imperial

36 Cal. App. 3d 654 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1974

They also contend the immunity statutes must be strictly construed and do not apply under the facts alleged in their pleading. … The statutes must be strictly construed, and governmental immunity should not be decreed unless the Legislature has clearly provided for it. (Baldwin v.

Hardin v. PDX, Inc.

227 Cal. App. 4th 159 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2014

Treatment with this medication should be stopped unless it is clearly determined that the medicine did not cause the rash. … It has not been established at this juncture that WKH’s monographs are “truthful summaries” of official FDA proceedings, that they qualify as “public journals” for purposes of the section 47, subdivision (d) privilege, or

People v. Parker

46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 888 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 2006

After qualifying for benefits, a Nevada resident and his wife moved to California. … California’s interest, however, is not limited to establishing the absence of a criminal record.

New Hampshire Insurance v. City of Madera

144 Cal. App. 3d 298 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 23, 1983

In addition, the failure of City employees in the instant case to discover the closed valve and to open it, or to warn appellant that it was closed, or to prevent tampering with the valve clearly falls within the immunity … Although immunity statutes are to be strictly construed, “the conclusion is inescapable that the Legislature intended to establish immunity under the circumstances alleged . . . .” ( 64 Cal.2d at p. 233 .)

Holt v. Brock

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2022

III Quasi-judicial Immunity Plaintiff contends that Brock does not qualify for quasi-judicial immunity. … Mere appointment by the court is insufficient to establish quasi-judicial immunity.

Hernandez v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.

248 Cal. App. 2d 625 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 17, 1967

However, the language of the code section clearly does not encompass a total immunity from liability on account of injuries resulting from the condition of all irrigation district maintenance roads. … However, the affidavits in support of and the counter-affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, measured in light of well-established rules (Johnson v.

State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2013

It also does not clearly allege whether the Department of Corrections8 conducted a screening of Pitre and 8 The complaint refers to the “Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation” instead of the “Department of … Generally, public entities and employees enjoy statutory immunity for discretionary policy decisions, but do not have immunity for ministerial administrative acts. (Tarasoff v.

Acres v. Marston

California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 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.

People v. Myles

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2021

The trial court found the petition established a prima facie case and issued an order to show cause. … Accordingly, the Trujillo court’s reasoning does not apply here, because the Legislature clearly and expressly made provision for the court to go beyond the record of conviction to determine whether a defendant qualifies

McLain v. Superior Court

99 Cal. App. 2d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1950

Clearly, he would have served that sentence individually and not as chairman of the board of trustees. … Not only does it touch upon the bribery charged, but, if it be supplemented by proof of felonious intent thereby to influence the vote of Assemblyman Evans as charged, it will go far to establish the crime.

Frazier v. Moffatt

108 Cal. App. 2d 379 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 27, 1951

It is conceded that the defendant at all times here pertinent, was the duly elected, qualified and acting Justice of the Peace of San Antonio Township in Los Angeles County, and that the above-mentioned café was located within … The cases clearly hold that where a judicial officer violates a criminal statute, he is held to the same responsibility as any citizen (Craig v. United States, 9 Cir., 81 F.2d 816 ; United States v.

Manuel v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

173 Cal. App. 4th 927 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2009

[T]he *945 record clearly indicates that the USES failed to observe established regulations governing its conduct. … This is clearly not enough. (Calvillo, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 729 .)