Case law

People v. Label

43 Cal. App. 3d 766 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1974

Sanchez (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 664, 676 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 193 ].) *773 In re Golia (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 775, 781 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 323 ], analogizes the rule that “the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to establish … But the questions clearly called for incriminatory answers and related to possession and, possibly, sales of contraband by the witness on occasions other than during the time period as to which she had been granted immunity

Chaplis v. County of Monterey

97 Cal. App. 3d 249 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 28, 1979

The record is clearly supportive of the agency. … There was no testimony by a qualified expert on building practices as to what a reasonable builder would have done about the site.

Casterson v. Superior Court

123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 637 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 2002

A general demurrer will lie where the complaint “has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. … In particular, the interaction of the absolute field trip immunity of section 35330 and the qualified immunity for off-premises school activities of section 44808 has been the subject of discussion in several appellate decisions

Ex Parte Elam

6 Cal. App. 233 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1907

The conditions existing in this state with reference to the necessity for the conservation of irrigating waters are most clearly set out in the case last cited, and the reasons for the rule restricting the use clearly shown … There is no special privilege or immunity granted to the man with the hook and line.

Lewis v. County of Sacramento

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 2001

refute an affirmative defense established by the defendant. … County of Sacramento (1978) 21 Cal.3d 880, 883-885 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 361 , 582 P.2d 952 , 4 A.L.R.4th 858 ] [derivative immunity established by Gov. Code, § 815.2, subd.

City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court

160 Cal. App. 3d 837 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1984

“Upon analysis, it clearly appears that the gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is the failure of a governmental function. … Firemen are immune from liability for injuries “caused in fighting fires.” (§ 850.4.)

Knight v. City of Capitola

4 Cal. App. 4th 918 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1992

Alternatively, to establish a complete defense the city argued that it was entitled to public-entity immunity under either Government Code section *926 831.7 (which provides immunity to public entities and employees against … Knight had noticed the deposition of state representatives most qualified to testify (cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025, subd.

Hughes v. County of San Diego

35 Cal. App. 3d 349 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 1973

The court in Reed did not distinguish between the section’s two immunities, but the decision clearly involves the immunity based on the status of the plaintiff as an injured prisoner. … At issue was the portion of section 854.8 which allowed a mental patient to recover from public entities for injuries only by establishing his claim against the individual doctor involved.

Carr v. City of Newport Beach

California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2023

The dissent interprets the latter half of the diving provision to qualify a public entity’s immunity if it chooses to prohibit diving at a particular location. … Public entities are immune from liability for injuries arising from a failure to enforce the law (§ 818.2), meaning this is not a viable basis for establishing gross negligence. (See Wood v.

People v. Onofrio

65 Cal. App. 2d 584 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 1944

The court then continued: “There is no rule better established or more universally recognized by the courts than that where competent evidence is produced on a trial the courts will not stop to inquire or investigate the … Such study of the subject as was incidental to his work on the vice squad, together with his extensive experience, served to qualify him satisfactorily. (See People v.

Grenell v. City of Hermosa Beach

103 Cal. App. 3d 864 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 1980

Code, § 810 et seq.) is that “except as otherwise provided by statute” a *872 public entity is not liable for tortious injuries, and that the liabilities established by the act are subject to the statutory immunities. … “(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would

Liapes v. Facebook, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 21, 2023

Facebook qualifies as a business establishment. (White, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 1032 [Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination by online businesses].) … Bird (2018) 5 Cal.5th 522, 544.) “ ‘The prototypical service qualifying for [CDA] immunity is an online messaging board (or bulletin board) on which Internet subscribers post comments and respond to comments posted by others

Winterburn v. City of Pomona

186 Cal. App. 3d 878 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 1986

In spite of the fact that city planners, who speak their own arcane dialect, may have regarded the land as “non-recreational,” public access to and use of the land was clearly contemplated. … Mere alleged hearings concerning the cave, assuming they actually occurred, do not establish that the city voluntarily undertook the duty to restrict entry to the cave.

Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology

212 Cal. App. 3d 872 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1989

The “establishment clause”—actually an “anti'-establishment clause” —guarantees us the government will not usé its resources to impose religion on us. … Thus for purposes of this appeal we find “auditing” qualifies as a “religious practice” just as Scientology qualifies as a “religion.”

Puskar v. City & County of San Francisco

239 Cal. App. 4th 1248 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2015

“The statutes must be strictly construed, and governmental immunity should not be decreed unless the Legislature has clearly provided for it. [Citation.] … ‘establish immunity not only for injury resulting from the condition of fire-fighting equipment or facilities but also for conduct of firemen in fighting fires.’”

E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2025

The court explained that while a deputy public defender’s decision to represent a particular client may qualify as an immune “discretionary” act, “once the employee undertakes to render such services, he or she is not immune … The District cites no authority that such conduct qualifies as “quasi-legislative policy-making” entitled to immunity under Government Code section 820.2.

Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2017

objective appraisal of whether an officer facing civil suit violated “clearly established” law, and is not simply a test of subjective good faith. … the federal rule of qualified immunity absent specific legislative authorization.

Chavez v. Glock, Inc.

207 Cal. App. 4th 1283 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 2012

Examining these factors, Clock and Revolver Club contend undisputed evidence establishes the benefits of the Clock 21’s 5.5-pound trigger connector and absence of a manual or grip safety to law enforcement officers clearly … Lord’s education, experience and training clearly qualified him for and encompassed such testing.

Maxon Industries, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

16 Cal. App. 4th 1387 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 29, 1993

The Fund argues that these cases do not establish the proprietary nature of its activities. … The previous common law in California and in other states was that punitive damages could not be imposed against public entities absent a statute that clearly subjected the entity to such liability.

Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco

California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 2017

By then, appellants contend, the jury’s findings establish without doubt that Cornell was in full flight, clearly indicating consciousness of guilt. … (b), the federal standard for qualified immunity that has evolved in the last three decades, which is based on an objective appraisal of whether an officer facing civil suit violated “clearly established” law, and is not