Case law

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.

People v. VASCO

31 Cal. Rptr. 3d 643 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2005

Rams moved to quash, arguing newspaper reporters possess a First Amendment qualified immunity from testifying. … Rams gained immunity from contempt and the right to withhold unpublished information once he established the necessary foundation for invoking the shield law.

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."].)

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.

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.

Helm v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2024

City of Piedmont (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084 (Amberger-Warren) [“It is well-established that the immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail”]; Treweek v. … Moreover, he described the pathway as having “a more pronounced kind of trail outline that [he] could see where it had been utilized,” and he explained the path “was more clearly defined, not overgrown with weeds and didn

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).

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.

Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes

California Court of Appeal · Jan 29, 2021

Challenging the court’s ruling, appellant contends the city failed to establish any of the elements of design immunity. … cannot shield a failure to warn that is itself caused by a qualifying design under section 830.6.

Gonzales v. City of San Jose

23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 16, 2004

Section 14.16.2205 establishes a duty on the part of abutting landowners for injuries to third persons on public sidewalks, while the Act establishes liability for public entities and their employees for dangerous conditions … Concurrent liability of San Jose and an abutting landowner is not tantamount to immunizing San *1139 Jose for dangerous conditions on public sidewalks. (See, e.g., Low v.

Brookhouser v. State of California

10 Cal. App. 4th 1665 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 1992

We shall conclude that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the failure to provide information caused Brookhouser’s injuries, and that in any event Farr and the state were as a matter of law immune from liability … . *1681 Brookhouser argues, essentially preliminarily, that Farr and the state should not have been permitted to raise the immunity (1) because the First Appellate District’s opinion on the first appeal implicitly established

Muffett v. Royster

147 Cal. App. 3d 289 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 23, 1983

On submitting such matter, the trial court is invited to rule whether the evidence is sufficient to support the design immunity defense, and if the trial court determines that the defense has been established, the jury is … In order for the state to establish design immunity as a defense, the state must show (1) A causal relationship between the plan and the accident; (2) discretionary approval of the plan prior to construction; (3) substantial

Bach v. County of Butte

147 Cal. App. 3d 554 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1983

The court reasoned that “If a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties no less than would the threat of common-law suits for malicious *565 prosecution … The Supreme Court acknowledged the boundary question in Imbler, observing that acts of a prosecutor not intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process might not qualify for immunity. ( Imbler, supra

People v. Hull

California Court of Appeal · Jan 31, 2019

against a grant of immunity because the defense failed to show that the testimony it hoped to gain was clearly exculpatory and essential and for the additional reason that defendant did not clearly assert that the prosecutor … We have already summarized the overwhelming evidence establishing defendant’s guilt in our discussion of defendant’s immunity argument.

City & County of San Francisco v. Flying Dutchman Park, Inc.

18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2004

Flying Dutchman’s Privileges and Immunities Claim Relying on Saenz v. … In making its claim, Flying Dutchman poses the inequity under the state’s privileges and immunities clause as follows: “The differing parking tax burdens put on hotel occupants and residents offend the privileges and immunities

People v. Clemmons

208 Cal. App. 2d 696 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1962

The witness was granted immunity under section 1324 of the Penal Code and was advised by both her counsel and the court that she would have complete immunity from prosecution. Again, she refused to testify. … Defendant next contends the prosecution did not establish the actual commission of the offense by defendant by substantial testimony.

People v. Miami Nation Enterprises

California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 2014

We also held the trial court had erred in concluding tribal sovereign immunity had been waived based on a “sue or be sued” clause in the resolution establishing MNE as an economic subdivision of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma … , and whether the entity serves tribal sovereign 7 The Court held only that the tribe did not qualify as a “person” who could sue under title 42 United States Code section 1983 “to vindicate the sovereign right it

Orange County Social Services Agency v. Alfred A.

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 106 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 13, 2007

And if the request is made jointly, the court may still deny immunity if “to do so would be clearly contrary to *1135 the public interest.” (Rule 5.548(d)(2).) … and derivative use immunity.

Finot v. Pasadena City Board of Education

250 Cal. App. 2d 189 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1967

Venable is further qualified by experience and education to formulate the administrative policy that teachers at John Muir High School should not be permitted to wear beards. John A. … We do not find such a right, though, in the privileges and immunities provisions of the United States Constitution (art.

Kearl v. Lederle Laboratories

172 Cal. App. 3d 812 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 27, 1985

Under the second alternative test a plaintiff may establish a defect by showing the product’s design proximately caused his injury; the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish that, viewed from information available … Revlon Corp. (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 517 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 81 ], involved an over-the-counter drug— “Hi and Dri” deodorant—that would quite clearly not qualify for unavoidably dangerous product treatment; it is therefore unremarkable