Case law

Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1999

We conclude that the statute must be read to provide a qualified immunity, but to allow a defendant to assert any other common law or statutory privilege available. … Why specifically establish an immunity for good faith fraud reporting yet retain existing immunity for bad faith reporting? HQ The answer is found in the nature of legislative compromise. . . .

Gensburg v. Miller

31 Cal. App. 4th 512 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1994

Thus, the conduct was entitled to only qualified immunity. … egregious or intentional the conduct, qualified immunity shields only that conduct of a governmental official which he or she reasonably believed to be lawful in light of the clearly established law and facts of the case

Santos v. Kisco Senior Living, LLC

1 Cal. App. 5th 862 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 22, 2016

The Easton court first concluded that the immunity provided in section 15634 to mandated reporters was absolute, rather than qualified. … rather than qualified.

O'KANE v. Catuira

212 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1963

Since sections 1800 and 1801 are clearly invalid for the reasons above noted, it is unnecessary to subject them to further analysis. … Nineteenth —Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity. . . .

Baber v. Napa State Hospital

209 Cal. App. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1989

Section 855, subdivision (a) is a specific application of the general policy established in section 815.6. (Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) Liabilities and Immunities, § 4.34, p. 377.) … Whether the hospital exercised reasonable diligence to comply is a matter of defense for respondent to establish, and clearly cannot be resolved by the instant motion for nonsuit.

AMBERGER-WARREN v. City of Piedmont

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 631 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2006

We agree with the trial court that the pathway here is clearly a trail under the statute, notwithstanding plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary. C. … It is well established that the immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail, such as allowing accumulation of debris as alleged here. (Astenius v.

Raytheon Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

212 Cal. App. 3d 1242 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1989

The court made it clear that the condition did not have to be presently disabling in order to qualify as a physical handicap. (32 Cal.3d at pp. 609-610.) … AIDS is the end stage of this gradual immune system deterioration.

In Re Maki

56 Cal. App. 2d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1943

He qualifies himself for such responsibility by his allegiance to time honored ethical standards as well as by complying with the requirements of the state in gaining the knowledge and skill which qualify him to administer … Rather are we impelled by the necessity of determining the intent of the lawmakers and whether that intent violates an established right.

Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills

214 Cal. App. 4th 1534 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2013

The MMPA establishes three groups of persons entitled to the immunity described above: (1) qualified patients, persons with identification cards, and the primary caregivers of such persons; (2) individuals who assist the … Significantly, the MMPA also expressly extends immunity from prosecution under the same enumerated Health and Safety Code sections to certain “collective” conduct: “Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards

Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane

67 Cal. App. 3d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1977

If the trial court determines that the defense has been established, the jury is instructed that the public entity is immune as a matter of law for design-related damages, but if the damage is unrelated to the design (e.g … In the second place, examination of the record is persuasive that appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence establishing the criteria *574 of design immunity, and, as a result, the instruction on design immunity should

H & M ASSOCIATES v. City of El Centro

109 Cal. App. 3d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1980

Defendants have thus failed to make the required showing necessary for immunity. Accordingly, on this sparse record, we conclude governmental discretionary immunity has not been established. … This argument, based upon these absolute and qualified statutory privileges, at this stage of the proceedings suffers the same fate encountered by the statutory immunity contention.

Valero v. Spread Your Wings, LLC

California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2023

“The Easton court first concluded that the immunity provided in section 15634 to mandated reporters was absolute, rather than qualified. … The Easton court continued, ‘Clearly, the purpose of the statutory scheme of which section 15630 is a part and the precise language of the 1998 version of the section, would not be advanced by denying immunity to either [

DeJung v. Superior Court

169 Cal. App. 4th 533 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2008

Section 815.2(b) not only is clearly the more general of the two statutes, but also, as previously noted, contains an express exception for situations governed by other statutes. … It also raises an issue of fact regarding whether the court’s proffered explanation that Omell was best qualified for the position was pretextual.

People v. West Valley Caregivers, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2015

Following the definitions and the provision making it “unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment or operation of a [MMB]” is a section titled “Limited Immunity,” which states, “Notwithstanding … “The voters thus found all ongoing MMB‟s, whether or not they qualified for limited immunity, had the potential for deleterious impact and secondary effects on the community.”

Esparza v. County of Los Angeles

224 Cal. App. 4th 452 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2014

Mora did not qualify for a position as a deputy sheriff because he failed the background investigation for reasons of “Financial Irresponsibility and Judgment.” … The party asserting collateral estoppels bears the burden of establishing these requirements. (Ibid.)

City of Pomona v. Superior Court

182 Cal. App. 3d 1093 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 25, 1986

The motion was based, inter alia, on the City’s claim of immunity under section 866. Documents supporting the motion established that on April 12, 1982, a child was killed by falling rocks while playing in the cave. … Code, § 810 et seq.) is that ‘except as otherwise provided by statute’ a public entity is not liable for tortious injuries, and that the liabilities established by the act are subject to the statutory immunities.

Carroll v. County of Los Angeles

60 Cal. App. 4th 606 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 30, 1997

This appeal presents the question of whether a paved bicycle path qualifies as a “trail” under the immunity provisions of Government Code section 831.4. 1 We hold that it does, and affirm the judgment that was entered in … Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1995) at page 1251 defines a trail as “a marked or established path or route . . . (Italics added.) We hold that the Path qualifies as a “trail” under subdivision (b).

Shepherd v. Jones

136 Cal. App. 3d 1049 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1982

Respondents have qualified immunity from liability. … The grant of qualified immunity for public officials presupposes that mistakes will be made. However, “[t]here must be a degree of immunity if [our] schools or cities are to function effectively. [Citation.]

People v. Mower

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 78 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 14, 2001

By its language and in the context of the overall statutory scheme, the Act clearly creates an exception. … For the reasons set forth above, we hold that the Act provides those claiming to be qualified patients an affirmative defense, not complete immunity from prosecution. *87 VI TUOLUMNE COUNTY'S "THREE PLANT" POLICY Finally,

County of Sacramento v. Superior Court

209 Cal. App. 4th 776 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 4, 2012

Ley also noted that the immunity at issue was not qualified in any manner, which distinguished it from immunities expressly limited in scope. (Id. at pp. 1303-1304.) … In Storch, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pages 678 to 680, the court held that absolute immunity was essential for reporters of suspected child abuse, because it is too easy to plead around a qualified immunity and there would