Case 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 … Ordinance No. 185,343 repealed Proposition D’s provisions making it a misdemeanor to operate or maintain an MMB without qualifying for immunity (LAMC, §§ 45.19.6.2, 45.19.6.3), and enacted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

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

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”.

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

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.

McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. v. Superior Court

189 Cal. App. 3d 961 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1987

The threshold requirement that petitioners establish the absence of an adequate remedy at law has already been satisfied. … Clearly, petitioners had a substantial interest in a favorable resolution of their summary judgment motion.

Michael J. v. Los Angeles County Department of Adoptions

201 Cal. App. 3d 859 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1988

Summary judgment is properly granted only when the evidence in support of the moving party establishes that there is no issue of fact to be tried. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c; Lipson v. … “Unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.” (Ramos v.

Jamgotchian v. Slender

170 Cal. App. 4th 1384 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2009

“On the other hand, we have concluded that the discretionary act statute does immunize officials and agencies against claims that they unreasonably delayed regulations under which a murdered security guard might have qualified … The undisputed facts do not establish that Slender was entitled to the protection of quasi-judicial immunity if he committed a trespass to chattels. III.

Yavapai-Apache Nation v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel

201 Cal. App. 4th 190 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 29, 2011

For state court jurisdiction to exist in these matters, the tribe’s waiver of immunity must be clearly expressed as to its scope and applicability to disputes, and must be made by a person or entity authorized to do so. … (See In re Marriage of Eben-King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 117 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 113 ] [rejecting grounds for relief advanced for the first time on appeal because “[i]t is well established that issues or theories not

Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection District

10 Cal. App. 5th 1135 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 2017

It does not address a statute like section 850.4, which provides absolute, not qualified, immunity for public entities and public employees. (See Pacific Bell v. … Under these definitions, the base camp would qualify as a firefighting facility.

People v. Hill

19 Cal. App. 3d 306 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 1971

Evidence of defendant’s subsequent narcotics offense was clearly *320 admissible to show guilty knowledge, motive, intent or presence of common scheme and design (People v. … Furthermore, the purported testimony concerned only the impeachment of the prosecution witness Stevenson on the collateral matter of proof of other crimes to establish intent, etc., and in view of the overwhelming evidence

BOUGERE v. County of Los Angeles

45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 711 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2006

It is well established that states and state officers sued in their official capacity are not considered “persons” for purposes of section 1983 and are immune from liability under that statute by virtue of the Eleventh Amendment … to the United States Constitution and the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Semaan v. Mosier

California Court of Appeal · Feb 26, 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.

Shakespeare v. City of Pasadena

230 Cal. App. 2d 375 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 1964

But, whatever its effect on causes of action recognized by the Muskopf ease and arising prior to the effee *381 tive date of the 1961 act (September 15, 1961), the 1961 act clearly applies to causes of action such as are … “(b) The liability of a public entity established by this part (commencing with section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including this part, and is subject to any defenses that would