Case law

Ostrager v. State Board of Control

99 Cal. App. 3d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 1979

Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. … Privileges and Immunities Clause.”

In re Wedderburn ex rel. Apgar

66 Cal. App. 2d 70 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 28, 1944

It is only when the evidence presented to the trial court establishes the fact that a defendant is a member of the exempted class defined by section 43.31 that such defendant is immune from prosecution. … therefrom by reason of the exemption provisions of section 43.31, —a perfect defense, if established.

Stufkosky v. Department of Transportation

California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2023

“Design immunity is . . . often raised on a motion for summary judgment or nonsuit, [thereby] enabling the trial court to find the defense established as a matter of law.” (Grenier, supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at 939-940.) … Such evidence is not necessary because the complaint clearly alleges the required causal connection. (See Alvis v.

Cole v. Town of Los Gatos

205 Cal. App. 4th 749 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 27, 2012

To establish a qualifying condition, the plaintiff must point to at least one “ ‘physical characteristic’ ” of the property. {Sun v. City of Oakland (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1187 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 372 ].) … Town cited several specific immunity statutes in passing, but offered no argument in support of their application. Town’s brief on appeal also asserts in passing that Town is “protected by design immunity (Govt.

Semaan v. Mosier

California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2026

“Failure to provide proper headings forfeits issues that may be discussed in the brief but are not clearly identified by a heading.” (Pizarro v. Reynoso (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 172, 179.) … Plaintiffs could not establish their claims have minimal merit because Mosier’s actions as receiver are subject to quasi-judicial immunity.

Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 289 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 11, 2000

Therefore, although Congress did not establish federal courts as the exclusive forum for section 1983 suits, it plainly intended federal courts to have “ ‘a paramount role’ ” in enforcing the statute. … In fact, the court was required to presume the bistate entity did not qualify for immunity, unless it was shown that the states and Congress intended it to be immune. {Id., at pp. 43-44 [115 S.Ct. at pp. 402-403].)

California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga

181 Cal. App. 4th 30 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 15, 2010

The court also noted that state officials have qualified immunity from section 1983 actions brought against them in their individual capacities unless a plaintiff can (1) show a violation *35 of constitutional rights and … The court did not reach the qualified immunity question, however, because it concluded that because the proposals were never implemented, no constitutional rights violation occurred.

Bradley v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

30 Cal. App. 3d 818 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 1973

Although the trial court failed to specify whether its ruling was founded on the absolute privilege contained in Civil Code, section 47, subdivision 2, or the conditional or qualified privilege provided in subdivision 3 of … It is easily discernible what result would ensue should we condone such an apparent ruse by providing absolute immunity to the resourceful slanderer.

Paley v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASS'N

159 Cal. App. 2d 500 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 18, 1958

to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizen. … to abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizen ...”

American Tobacco Co. v. Superior Court

208 Cal. App. 3d 480 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1989

As indicated, the bare words of section 1714.45 are consistent with plaintiffs’ position: The statute clearly states that a manufacturer or seller will not be liable if the product meets the conditions set forth in subdivisions … .3d 121 eliminated doubt, if there was any, that the new statute left untouched the rule, reaffirmed in Cronin , that a plaintiff in a products liability case seeking recovery upon the theory of strict liability need not establish

People v. Toluca Lake Collective

California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 2017

Substantial Compliance—Immunity Provision 6  Section 45.19.6.2 prohibits owning, establishing, operating, using, or permitting the establishment or operation of … The LAMC specifically mandated, inter alia, ICO registration “with the City Clerk” in order to qualify for immunity.

Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento

17 Cal. App. 4th 791 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1993

However, due to the significant increase in traffic flow on H Street since 1973, and the Draft Report indication of a significantly high accident rate on the street, a [ministerial] duty clearly arises at this point to review … “[A]s applied to the present case, once the state was put on notice that the June 1984 design for which the state had immunity nevertheless produced a dangerous condition, the immunity continued only for a reasonable time

Lussier v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District

206 Cal. App. 3d 92 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1988

Clearly, if nonsuit was based on the common law rule of immunity, then the court erred in granting it, and the issue of trespass should have been submitted to the jury. … Clearly, evidence that Ed Hayes’s father was cited for diverting the creek with a shovel does not contradict Ed Hayes’s testimony.

Perry v. East Bay Regional Park District

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2006

A defendant moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense. (§ 437c, subd. (p)(2).) … “sought to give a public entity and its employees specific qualified immunity from liability for injuries due to defined ‘hazardous recreational activity’ on public property.

X.M. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 16, 2021

Chandler, supra, 538 U.S. 119, the Court held that, unlike a state, a municipal corporation qualifies as a “person” under the False Claims Act because the definition of “person” when the act was first passed in 1863 included … Suffice it to say, treble damages will be considered punitive when they apply to intentional misconduct or morally offensive behavior, and the Legislature has not clearly indicated an additional, compensatory purpose.

People v. Sandercock

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2013

That section provides: "Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California … Section 11362.775 provides immunity only for patients and caregivers who "associate . . . in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes . . . ."

People v. Campbell

137 Cal. App. 3d 867 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 1982

The People would stand this exception on its head, by applying it to a statute which expressly establishes the standard of immunity. … Nor did the trial court seek to weigh the consequences of immunity against the need for the testimony, by invoking its statutory power to determine whether immunity “would be clearly contrary to the public interest.”

Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School District

186 Cal. App. 3d 707 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1986

,]” add nothing to establish a dangerous condition. … A reading of the statute clearly shows it also has a prospective application.

Boeken v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

217 Cal. App. 4th 992 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 2013

The Immunity Statute Philip Morris argues that liability and causation could not be established through collateral estoppel in Dylan‟s action because, as a result of cases decided after Richard‟s trial, there was a … Fairness Application of collateral estoppel to establish liability and causation was unfair, Philip Morris contends, because there was a material change in the law on the Immunity Statute after the trial in Richard

Freeny v. City of San Buenaventura

California Court of Appeal · Jun 4, 2013

On appeal, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing error. (San Mateo, supra, at p. 426.) I. … By contrast, reading section 822.2's exception for misrepresentations motivated by actual fraud, corruption or actual malice as not qualifying the tort immunity that otherwise attaches to legislators' policy making decisions