Case law

Taliaferro v. Locke

182 Cal. App. 2d 752 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1960

But the case turned upon the clearly mandatory provision of the Bed Light Abatement Act that a district attorney “must bring such action [abatement proceedings] whenever directed by the board of supervisors. ...” … It should also be noted that although Government Code section 26501 uses the sometimes mandatory “shall” in defining the district attorney’s duty to institute proceedings, the use is qualified by the ensuing clauses that

Bonus-Bilt, Inc. v. United Grocers, Ltd.

136 Cal. App. 3d 429 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1982

On the other hand, manufacturers’ liability clearly arises where plaintiff employee is injured in using a product designed and manufactured by his employer primarily for sale to the general public and only incidentally used … At the trial of the action the issue so specified shall be deemed established and the action shall proceed as to the issues remaining.

Risley v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners

60 Cal. App. 2d 32 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1943

I reads: “No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the Legislature, nor shall any citizen, or class of citizens, be granted privileges or immunities which … “Nineteenth—Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege or immunity. ’ ’ Clearly section 126 violates neither of these provisions.

Grinnell v. Charles Pfizer & Co.

274 Cal. App. 2d 424 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1969

Defendant now especially urges that the testimony of these doctors must be disregarded on the question of causation because neither man was a qualified epidemiologist. 9 There is no merit in this proposition since the qualifications … The language of the insert can clearly be construed as an affirmation of fact.

Morin v. County of Los Angeles

215 Cal. App. 3d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 1, 1989

The legislative history of section 831.2 clearly demonstrates the Legislature extended immunity to not only natural bodies of water, but to any bodies of water including those that are man-made. (Ibid.) … The legislative history of section 831.2 clearly reveals the “Legislature intended to provide immunity where the public entity had knowledge of a dangerous condition which amounted to a hidden trap. . . .

Lathrop v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group

8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2004

A clinic is defined by the Health and Safety Code as an establishment providing direct outpatient health services. (Health & Saf. Code, § 1200.) … Since the State was immune from suit for its employees’ negligence, it could not be held vicariously liable for the doctors’ malpractice. (Id. at pp. 1115, 1116.)

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County

10 Cal. App. 5th 563 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 5, 2017

There is no dispute that PG&E’s license under its utility tariff constitutes an “interest” in San Mateo County Memorial Park that qualifies for protection under this paragraph. … The statute “clearly” applies to “private owners of easements and of revocable licenses.” (Hubbard, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 197.)

Shaddox v. Bertani

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2003

That a person’s unfitness for law enforcement *1417 can clearly be found in off-duty behavior has become an established incident of public employment. (E.g., Cranston v. … Superior Court (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1476 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 1476 ] held that a knowingly false report to police was entitled to only a qualified privilege.

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Time Travel International, Inc.

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 2005

Appellant Qualifies as an “Employer” Division 4 of the Labor Code (§§ 3200-6099) is entitled Workers’ Compensation and Insurance. … Appellant contends that it qualifies as an employer pursuant to section 3850, subdivision (b).

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court

89 Cal. App. 3d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1979

. *217 I We here set forth the facts as established both in support of and in opposition to the motion. … Such policy is clearly expressed by the Senate Legislative Committee comment accompanying section 831.2, and places the statute in unmistakable perspective.

Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 206 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2006

Relying on the statutory language the court held “individuals who *1237 do not themselves qualify as employers may not be sued under the FEHA for alleged discriminatory acts.” (Reno v. … immunity be withdrawn in the particular case.

Warburton/Buttner v. Superior Court

127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 706 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2002

petition for writ of mandate brought by Warburton/ Buttner, a limited partnership that develops and manages commercial real estate on Indian land (Warburton), significant issues are raised concerning the showing required to establish … Thus, the relevant immunity question should be whether the alleged actions that form the basis of a particular suit are clearly governmental rather than corporate in nature. (Ibid.)

People v. Hollinquest

190 Cal. App. 4th 1534 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2010

Our inquiry proceeds from the established premise that neither the prosecution nor the trial court was obligated to confer immunity upon Buchanan at trial. … when the defense has made a showing that a defense witness should be afforded immunity in order to provide clearly exculpatory testimony.”

People v. Knight

239 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 31, 2015

The law clearly favors such disclosure. … However, Marsden does not establish a rule of per se reversible error. (People v. Chavez (1980) 26 Cal.3d 334, 348-349; Reed, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1148; People v. Washington (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 940, 944.)

Vergos v. McNeal

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 647 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2007

Statutory hearing procedures qualify as official proceedings authorized by law for § 425.16 purposes. (E.g., Kibler v. … She also argues she is entitled to absolute and qualified immunity, and plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Jones v. Oxnard School District

270 Cal. App. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1969

The subchapter established the standards for issuance of provisional credentials by the state board of education. … appellant was not qualified.

Dean v. Superior Court

35 Cal. App. 3d 112 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 5, 1973

In analyzing claims of immunity from aerial surveillance by agents of government, the observer’s altitude is a minor factor. … After the aerial survey the officers still had inadequate means to establish the location with the particularity needed for a search warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1525; People v.

Harrison v. City of Rancho Mirage

243 Cal. App. 4th 162 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 18, 2015

(Qualified Patients, at p. 764.) The Qualified Patients court also referred to Gibson. … Second, while it is true that legislation may not immunize a business from Unruh Act claims for discrimination that occurs in that establishment [citation], it does not follow that enacting legislation, as here, transforms

County of Kern v. Sparks

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 2, 2007

However, before the County can prevail, it must establish that Sparks “knowingly” presented these false claims. … Sparks is immune from liability for negligent misrepresentation.

Ross v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 715 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 24, 2007

his age in violation of FEHA (second cause of action) by (1) punishing him for acts and omissions that were not punished when committed by younger workers in the same category; (2) filling his position with younger, less qualified … Montoya (1995) 10 Cal.4th 972 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d *1514 842, 897 P.2d 1320 ] (Caldwell), section 815 establishes “the basic rule[] that public entities are immune from liability except as provided by statute.”