Case law

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. 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.

Bergeron v. Boyd

California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 2014

As the defendant was clearly engaged in this latter activity, she is entitled to the protection of such quasi-judicial immunity.” (Howard, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at pp. 859-860.) … Consequently, the court held the undisputed facts did not establish the horse steward was entitled to the protection of quasi-judicial immunity if he committed a trespass to chattel.

American Property Management Corp. v. Superior Court

206 Cal. App. 4th 491 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 2012

“We reject this concept” because “[i]ts inevitable consequence would be to confer tribal immunity on every entity established by an Indian tribe . . . .” … This fact may not be dispositive of the sovereign immunity issue, but the full extent and nature of the financial ties between the entities is clearly a factor to be weighed in the analysis.

McKray v. State of California

74 Cal. App. 3d 59 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 1977

But it is undisputed that the line marking the left side of the outer lane was clearly visible. Yet Laspada crossed the entire shoulder, so that his car’s right side was more than 22 feet from the obvious lane line. … The record conclusively establishes that Laspada’s negligence was the sole cause of plaintiff’s injury. In light of this holding, we need not discuss the state’s exemption under design immunity. Judgment affirmed.

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.

Laabs v. City of Victorville

163 Cal. App. 4th 1242 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 7, 2008

bears the burden of establishing each of the three elements of the loss of the immunity. … The City argues that it established each element of design immunity and, therefore, “because [it] is clearly immune from liability, [plaintiff’s] pursuit of her claims was unreasonable as a matter of law.”

People v. Onesra Enterprises

California Court of Appeal · Jun 15, 2018

Own or operate an Unlawful Establishment; [¶] 2. Participate as an Employee, contractor, agent or volunteer or in any other capacity in an Unlawful Establishment; [¶] 3. … Ordinance No. 185,343 repealed Proposition D’s provisions making it a misdemeanor to operate or maintain an MMB without qualifying for immunity (LAMC, §§ 45.19.6.2, 45.19.6.3), and enacted provisions making it a misdemeanor

Tricor California, Inc. v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

30 Cal. App. 4th 230 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 21, 1994

Although SCIF’s allegedly deficient performance does not violate the express terms of the policy concerning dividends, it does potentially qualify as a breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing with respect … We nonetheless agree with the Courtesy Ambulance analysis and hold the trial court erred in finding SCIF immune from punitive damages.

Strong v. State

201 Cal. App. 4th 1439 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 30, 2011

(b).) 7 These statutes “establish two principles; (1) unless they are granted specific statutory immunity, a public entity and its employees are hable in tort for the same causes of action that could be brought against a … “Together these statutes establish two principles: (1) unless they are granted specific statutory immunity, a public entity and its employees are liable in tort for the same causes of action that could be brought against

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.

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.”

Zolin v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO CTY.

19 Cal. App. 4th 1157 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1993

“The demurrer for failure to state a cause of action on the basis that the cause of action is barred by governmental immunity and the litigation *1161 privilege of [Civil Code section] 47 is overruled. … The Legislature was. well aware of the courts’ need for a list of qualified schools to assure traffic violators are sent to competent schools near their residences when a violator’s residence is outside the courts’ jurisdiction

Western Title Guaranty Co. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District

235 Cal. App. 2d 815 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 19, 1965

The practice thus established is entitled to consideration and should not be overturned unless clearly unsupportable. (Cf. Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. … It reaffirmed clearly and unmistakably that a public entity or a *824 public employee may be liable in contract when it said: “Nothing in this part affects liability based on a contract or the right to obtain relief other

Powell v. State of California

234 Cal. App. 3d 910 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1991

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the language of the statute clearly created a mandatory duty. (Id. at p. 910.) … MacDonald therefore did not reach the immunity issues raised here.

Miller v. Hoagland

247 Cal. App. 2d 57 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1966

It clearly appears that Mr. Hoagland was acting for the City of Bakersfield within the scope of his employment when he wrote the letter. (See Hardy v. Vial, 48 Cal.2d 577 [ 311 P.2d 494 ]; Reverend Mother Pauline v. … The trial judge sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that the code sections establishing immunity, in the absence of a claim against the city, were applicable, and that no such claim had ever been filed

Mosk v. Summerland Spiritualist Assn.

225 Cal. App. 2d 376 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 9, 1964

It seems to us that property held under a charitable trust would have the same immunity. … that privity of estate between Worsley and Naomi existed which is required to establish tacking.

Gruner v. Barber

207 Cal. App. 2d 54 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1962

Claimed Immunity Lastly, immunity is claimed by defendant because he performed his contract according to the plans and specifications furnished by the public agency employing him. … The general rule indicated by the cases relied upon clearly shows that: “One who contracts with a public body for the performance of public work is entitled to share the immunity of the public from liability for incidental

In Re Cutler

1 Cal. App. 2d 273 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 1934

This distinction is clearly pointed out in the case of In re Lake, 65 Cal. … In subdivision 3 “roaming” is qualified by the language “without any lawful business”.

Rauschan v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

80 Cal. App. 754 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1927

Municipal corporations enjoy their immunity from liability for torts only in so far as they partake of the state’s immunity, and only in the exercise of those governmental powers and duties imposed upon them as representing … They are only sovereign and only immune in so far as they represent the state. They have no sovereignty of their own, they are in no sense sovereign per se.