Case law

Stuart v. Crestview Mutual Water Co.

34 Cal. App. 3d 802 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1973

While these allegations may, perhaps, point up the injustice of the established immunity of water companies, they really amount to nothing more than a specific pleading of negligence. … Even if water company immunity for common law negligence is subject to an exception based on violation of a statute or local ordinance, clearly a resolution to publish a “Water Works Manual” at some time in the future, does

Huerta v. City of Santa Ana

California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 2019

“It is clearly established that ‘[f]indings of fact and conclusions of law are required after “the trial of a question of fact by the court.” [Citation.] … (§§ 830.4, 830.8), and design immunity (§ 830.6).

Larson v. City of Oakland

17 Cal. App. 3d 91 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1971

They rest, we believe, on the circumstances and context in each case; and do not establish any general rule. … The general common law immunity for injury to, and inflicted by, prisoners was well established. Compare, Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles (1951) 104 Cal.App.2d 545 , 548 [ 232 P.2d 26 ]; Wood v.

Tokeshi v. State of California

217 Cal. App. 3d 999 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 1, 1990

The Court of Appeal found that “the *1007 certificate of ownership here issued can clearly be construed as a ‘misrepresentation’ by the Department of Motor Vehicles of the true ownership of the vehicle, falling within the … In its respondent’s brief, County states: “In 1986 there was no established tolerance for Plictran 50W on raspberries.

Janis v. California State Lottery Commission

80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 549 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1998

Janis cannot establish this claim. Government Code section 8880.24 was intended to protect against hatin caused by false and misleading advertising of lottery games. … Contrary to Janis’s contention, the section 8880.4 claim does not qualify as an “amended claim” under Government Code section 910.6.

Riley v. Southwest Marine, Inc.

203 Cal. App. 3d 1242 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 28, 1988

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the general contractor which was not a borrowing or de facto employer qualified for tort immunity as an “employer” under sections 904(a) and 905(a) of the LHWCA solely because … The court held “Mobil’s naked allegation that it is a general contractor is clearly an insufficient basis upon which to afford it tort immunity under the Act.” (Id. at p. 446.)

Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 2023

As our Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, “in the absence of a statutory provision establishing an exception to the general rule of Civil Code section 1714, courts should create one only where ‘clearly supported by … Foreseeability notwithstanding, Bird argues the “extreme burdens” it would be forced to undertake (were this court to decline to immunize its conduct) clearly support an exception to the general duty of ordinary care for

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

Slowikowska v. San Diego Sheriff's Dept. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2015

Qualified Immunity Slowikowska contends the trial court also erred by finding Abbott was entitled to qualified immunity. … If the answer is no, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. If the answer is yes, the court must proceed to the next question: whether the right was clearly established at the time the officer acted.

Cutter v. Brownbridge

183 Cal. App. 3d 836 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 24, 1986

Brownbridge demurred on the ground that his declaration was immune from civil liability pursuant to the judicial proceedings immunity of Civil Code section 47, subdivision 2. 2 The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend … In the present case, Evidence Code sections 1010 through 1027 clearly prescribe reasonable steps a psychotherapist is required to follow before he or she makes a disclosure.

Stark v. City of Los Angeles

168 Cal. App. 3d 276 · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 1985

‘Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by wilful or negligent acts must prevail.’” (Peterson v. … Accordingly, the court could properly find that the City’s affidavit did not establish misconduct of such a character as to have improperly influenced the jury (see Evid.

Rosner v. Peninsula Hospital District

224 Cal. App. 2d 115 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 16, 1964

Section 32128 of the Health and Safety Code, so far as relevant, provides: “The rules of the hospital, established by the board of directors pursuant to this article, shall include: 1. … The appellants contend that in view of the abolition of the doctrine of sovereign immunity as applied to a hospital district in Muskopf v.

Barnes v. Molino

103 Cal. App. 3d 46 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1980

The language actually used by the trial court in the signed order clearly was intended to change this. … Facts are alleged which more than establish such relevance, clearly indicating that there is cause to believe that unlawful activities are taking place on appellant’s business premises.

Morgan v. Beaumont Police Department

246 Cal. App. 4th 144 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2016

"Previous bills that followed the Nguyen decision, SB 219 (Romero, 2003) and SB 1866 (Aanestad, 2004), sought to rectify this clear imbalance by establishing that public entities are not immune from liability relating to … [ed] that a public entity cannot receive immunity under Section 17004.7 unless it has first adopted and promulgated a written policy for safe motor vehicle pursuits that meets minimum standards established by this bill

Raysinger v. Peoples Investment & Loan Ass'n

36 Cal. App. 3d 248 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1973

The type of loan which thus becomes exempt from the specified restrictions and regulations of the Act and at the same time confers an immunity upon the broker connected with it is ‘any bona fide loan of a principal amount … Thus, the instant transaction was secured in part by qualified security under' section 22009.

Green v. City of Livermore

117 Cal. App. 3d 82 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 19, 1981

’s decision “regarding whether to investigate or not may have been a discretionary decision ..., but once he decided to investigate, any negligence on his part in his ministerial performance *88 of the investigation was clearly … As in Clemente, supra, at page 379, neither the discretionary immunity of section 820.2 nor the more specific discretionary immunity of failure to enforce a statute (§§ 821, 818.2) immunized the City from the legal consequences

Alejo v. City of Alhambra

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1999

Therefore, the necessary linkage between the mandatory duty and the injury is established for pleading purposes. The failure to investigate was clearly a breach of duty. … Alicia T., however, is clearly distinguishable from the present case.

People v. Anderson

California Court of Appeal · Apr 28, 2022

The former provision provided, “A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of [qualifying felonies] in which a death occurs is liable for murder only if one of the following is proven: [¶] (1) The person … Observing that federal law did not clearly require a grant of immunity for the probation revocation testimony, our Supreme Court declined to decide the constitutional question. (Id. at pp. 878, 888–889.)

Brown v. Smith

California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2018

“On the contrary, the state’s wish to prevent the spread of communicable diseases clearly constitutes a compelling interest.” … The applicable authorities – legal and scientific – clearly show that immunization is reasonably related to maintaining the health of the subject of the immunization as well as the public health. c.

People ex rel. Trutanich v. Joseph

204 Cal. App. 4th 1512 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 26, 2012

, or giving away marijuana to qualified persons for medical use.” … Neither section 11362.775 nor section 11362.765 immunizes the marijuana sales activity conducted at Orgánica. Section 11362.775 protects group activity “to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.”