Case law

Jenkins v. County of Orange

212 Cal. App. 3d 278 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1989

The Hodorowski court established the test for applying qualified immunity to a social worker—the objective reasonableness of the action. (Id., at p. 1214.) … “We think that qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, strikes the better balance between” (id., at p. 1216) the family’s right to privacy and the state’s interest in discovering and preventing child abuse.

Treweek v. City of Napa

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 883 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2000

was established as a matter of law. { Giannuzzi, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at pp. 466-467.) … was established as a matter of law.

Nelsen v. City of Gridley

113 Cal. App. 3d 87 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1980

In addition, section 831.6 gives absolute immunity for unimproved and unoccupied portions of certain state lands and section 831.8 gives qualified governmental immunity for the artificial conditions of reservoirs and canals … For certain artificial or improved bodies of water, it qualified the immunity depending on the use (not necessarily recreational) and the age of the user.

Tagliavia v. County of Los Angeles

112 Cal. App. 3d 759 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 1980

preserve the system established for the administration of the law. … On that same ground it has been held that although a judge’s exercise of criminal contempt power is clearly judicial in nature and falls within the scope of judicial immunity, the eviction of a person from the courtroom by

Farnham v. City of Los Angeles

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 720 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1998

County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 606 [ 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 ], we held that the paved South Bay Bicycle Path qualified as a “trail” under the governmental immunity provisions of section 831.4. … It is true that part of the legislative history—depending on who is doing the analysis—shows a concern with total immunity over only unpaved roads or trails, and a more qualified immunity (as now expressed in section 831.4

Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs

204 Cal. App. 4th 112 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 2012

merits of his claims against those defendants because he presented no evidence showing he could overcome the qualified immunities. … that he had facts that would overcome these qualified privileges and immunities.

Maral v. City of Live Oak

221 Cal. App. 4th 975 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 26, 2013

The MMP also “immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. [Citation.]” (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 290 (Mentch).) … The MMP established a program for identification cards and granted specified persons 6 engaged in specified conduct certain immunities from criminal prosecution. (Ibid.)

People v. Trinity Holistic Caregivers, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2015

We reject defendants’ argument they qualified for limited immunity because they substantially complied with the ICO. … “permanently” disqualify the otherwise qualified MMB from obtaining immunity.

Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 316 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2000

Based upon the purpose of the immunity provision and upon the Legislature’s drafting of section 15634, we conclude that the privilege created by the section is absolute rather than qualified. … Clearly the purpose of the statutory scheme of which section 15630 is a part and the precise language of the 1998 version of the section, would not be advanced by denying immunity to either Moreau or Kossuth.

Guillory v. Hill

California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2015

Defense counsel suggested below that no “clearly established law . . . says that the term search has to exclude the interviews” (italics added), and counsel similarly invokes qualified immunity on appeal because “there was … And while “the right the official is alleged have violated must have been ‘clearly established’ . . . , [t]his is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has

County of Tulare v. Nunes

215 Cal. App. 4th 1188 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2013

In addition, “[a]s part of its effort to clarify and smooth implementation of the [CUA], the [MMPA] immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients.” … but merely sets forth certain immunities from criminal prosecution.

Kerkeles v. City of San Jose

199 Cal. App. 4th 1001 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2011

“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity. … Summary judgment was therefore not available to the defendant officers on the ground of qualified immunity; the officers’ alleged conduct violated Ricciuti’s “clearly established constitutional rights, and no reasonably competent

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim

187 Cal. App. 4th 734 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2010

immunity under [the CUA]. … Second, while it is true that legislation may not immunize a business from Unruh Civil Rights Act claims for discrimination that occurs in that establishment (see Gibson , at p. 1093, relying on Orloff v.

City of Claremont v. Kruse

177 Cal. App. 4th 1153 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 27, 2009

The MMP also “immunizes from prosecution a range of conduct ancillary to the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients. [Citation.]” (People v. … It accords additional immunities to qualified patients, holders of valid identification cards, and primary caregivers who “collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.)

Fremont Compensation Insurance v. Superior Court

44 Cal. App. 4th 867 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 23, 1996

Section 1877.5 affords insurers a qualified, immunity to report workers’ compensation fraud to a local prosecutor or the Department of Insurance. The qualified immunity does not extend to reports made in bad faith. … The interest groups and lobbyists who fought for only a qualified immunity in section 1877.5 had no reason to concede that insurers already had more than a qualified immunity to report workers’ compensation fraud.

People v. Clark

230 Cal. App. 4th 490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2014

’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver prior to his or her arrest.” … It is well established that immunity from arrest is exceptional, and, when granted, ordinarily is granted expressly. (See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.

Gensburg v. Miller

31 Cal. App. 4th 512 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1994

Thus, the conduct was entitled to only qualified immunity. … egregious or intentional the conduct, qualified immunity shields only that conduct of a governmental official which he or she reasonably believed to be lawful in light of the clearly established law and facts of the case

Wiley v. Kern High School District

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2024

Finally, government employees are subject to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … Finally, Wiley’s claim fails because Whiting (and any other officer still implicated) is entitled to qualified immunity.

O'KANE v. Catuira

212 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1963

Since sections 1800 and 1801 are clearly invalid for the reasons above noted, it is unnecessary to subject them to further analysis. … Nineteenth —Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity. . . .

Maas v. Municipal Court for the Southern Judicial District of San Mateo County

175 Cal. App. 3d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1985

He has not established any abuse of discretion. *606 IV The principal issue raised by appellant is whether witness Livingston waived her attorney-client privilege when she entered into the written immunity agreement. … While a written immunity agreement might include an unambiguous waiver of the attorney-client privilege ampng its terms, clearly the agreement at issue in this case did not.