Case law

Schooler v. State of California

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 343 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 2000

If we were to apply the language of Health and *1011 Safety Code section 115875 to the Government Code, perhaps an adjacent bluff could fall under “beach area,” thereby qualifying as part of a “public beach.” … However, because his nuisance action is barred, he cannot establish there is a redressable nuisance for which injunctive relief is available.

Allyson v. Department of Transportation

53 Cal. App. 4th 1304 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 1997

More particularly, the language noted is clearly intended to ensure that applicable immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act will prevail over its liability provisions. … In our view, should there be a failure to establish the factual predicate necessary to preclude invoking the immunity provided for in section 831, such immunity would be rendered meaningless were we to accept plaintiff’s

Haytasingh v. City of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2021

For example, one of the bill’s descriptions provided that “Assembly Bill No. 555, ‘by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty to keep its land safe for certain recreational users.’ (Sen. … These statutory provisions are simply not similar; section 831.7 clearly provides far broader immunity than Civil Code section 846.11 11 While the immunity in section 831.7 is limited to hazardous recreational activities

Burden v. County of Santa Clara

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 5, 2000

Burden’s misrepresentation claims regarding his recruitment and hiring as an employee clearly arose out of a business transaction between Burden and the County. … City of Colton, supra, 197 Cal.App.3d 1335 , we are convinced that the statutory scheme clearly provides that even in cases in which the public employee is liable for actual fraud, the public entity is immune. C.

Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Department of California Highway Patrol

213 Cal. App. 4th 1129 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 23, 2013

services under Government Code section 845; and (4) CHP 911 operators have qualified immunity from liability for providing necessary emergency services under Health and Safety Code section 1799.107. … The question of whether CHP is statutorily immune from liability does not arise unless it is determined that CHP owed a duty of care to the bus passengers and thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity.

Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians

1 Cal. App. 5th 1194 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2016

The Tribal Council’s powers also include enacting laws, statutes and codes, and establishing tribal courts. … “Consistent with this policy,” the cases hold that “ ‘tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.’ ” (Prescott v. Little Six, Inc. (8th Cir. 2004) 387 F.3d 753, 756.)

BRUNIUS v. Parrish

34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 13, 2005

The Mining Board establishes state policy for the conduct of mining operations and the reclamation of mined lands. (§ 2755 [“The board[ 9 ] shall adopt regulations that establish state policy for the reclamation of mined … Cross-complainants cite case law addressing whether local entities were “like an arm of the State” so as to qualify for Eleventh Amendment immunity. (E.g., Lynch v.

Read v. City of Lynwood

173 Cal. App. 3d 437 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1985

This immunity extends to the public employee’s employer (Gov. Code, § 815.2(b)). … Should she establish at trial that the council eliminated this position to prevent her from assuming her former position, it would follow that a four-fifths majority would have been required.

Loeb v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2019

Loeb argued immunity arose only if the County established the pathway "was designed and used for [a] recreational purpose." (Italics added.) … Based on that clarification, the trial court granted the motion to exclude Loeb's expert, noting that for purposes of immunity, the "case law clearly says it doesn't matter if [a pathway is] paved or not."

Hampton v. Cty. of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2013

established, as a matter of law, the affirmative defense of design immunity. 1. … This factor, alone, probably suffices to establish immunity."].)

Gabrielle A. v. County of Orange

10 Cal. App. 5th 1268 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 24, 2017

Finally, even if we were to disregard the no contest pleas and the relevant immunity doctrines, defendants correctly argue they met their burden to establish they were entitled to summary judgment on each cause of action … Nor would we ever find qualified people willing to become social workers under such conditions.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Powell CA4/2

California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2024

An action may qualify for the public interest exemption if three requirements are met. … In contrast, the general manager is not immune under the Government Claims Act. (See Caldwell v.

Katsaris v. Cook

180 Cal. App. 3d 256 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1986

Section 31103 grants livestock owners immunity from both civil and criminal liability. … Thus, the privilege is both immunity from crim *266 inal actions brought in the name of the people and immunity from claims brought by individual dog owners.

Corona v. State of California

178 Cal. App. 4th 723 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 2009

is nevertheless immune under Government Code section 818.4. … For this reason, the State is not entitled to immunity under section 818.4.

Billester v. City of Corona

26 Cal. App. 4th 1107 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 1994

Courts have identified two legislative objectives for the public entity immunity established by section 17004.7. … The statute also establishes a distinction between victims struck by suspects in jurisdictions that have established pursuit policies and those that have not.

American Indian Health etc. v. Kent

California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 2018

The states’ immunity from suit is sometimes referred to as “Eleventh Amendment immunity.” … An important limit on the sovereign immunity principle was established in Ex parte Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123 [52 L.Ed. 714] (Young).

Meyer v. City of Oakland

107 Cal. App. 3d 770 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 1980

Chapter 3 of the Act (commencing with § 844) establishes various exceptions to the general rule in the subject matter area defined by the chapter’s title (Police and Correctional Activities). … It nevertheless does not end our inquiry, because of the distinguishable feature that his “confinement” was qualified by the statute which both enabled and defined it. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd.

Berman v. City of Daly City

21 Cal. App. 4th 276 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 22, 1993

That court was convinced that “policies must clearly and with specificity set forth standards to guide officers in the field. … A review of these rulings by other circuits, however, leaves us convinced that the facts as alleged by Berman fail to establish a section 1983 cause of action in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pearson v. Reed

6 Cal. App. 2d 277 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1935

As observed by a distinguished English judge, it would establish the weakness of judicial authority in a degrading responsibility. (Taaffe v. Downes, 3 Moore P. C. 41 n.) … The immunity is absolute and is grounded on principles of public policy.

Cabral v. Martins

177 Cal. App. 4th 471 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 2009

Case law establishes that communications that are intimately intertwined with, and preparatory to, the filing of judicial proceedings qualify as petitioning activity for the purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute. … burden of establishing a probability that she will prevail on her cause of action against them.