Case law

People v. Willert

37 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 729 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1939

conditions and regulations under which the works may be established and operated. … The immunity from legislative control is limited to municipal affairs and to the extent specified by sections 6 and 11 of the same article.

People v. Bawden

208 Cal. App. 2d 589 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1962

Allan Margolis was granted immunity from prosecution by the court and was ordered to testify. … Valerie Chaille testified after an order of the court granting her immunity from prosecution.

Carpenter v. City of Los Angeles

230 Cal. App. 3d 923 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1991

As to Civil Code section 47, subdivision (c), this qualified privilege primarily relates to actions in defamation; hence, it does not relate to this appeal. (See generally 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. … This section does not offer the broad immunity urged by the City.

Storch v. Silverman

186 Cal. App. 3d 671 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 21, 1986

Discussion Our review of the sustaining of the demurrers is limited by established principles. … Clearly the immunity provision precludes civil actions against a mandated reporter who telephones the agency and submits a written report.

Collins v. Plant Insulation Co.

185 Cal. App. 4th 260 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2010

Proposition 51 “ ‘quite clearly is simply intended to limit the potential liability of an individual defendant for noneconomic damages to a proportion commensurate with that defendant’s . . . fault.’ ” (DaFonte, at p. 603 … The court explained, “Richards and DaFonte establish that under Proposition 51, fault will be allocated to an entity that is immune from paying for its tortious acts, but will not be allocated to an entity that is not a tortfeasor

Board of Trustees v. City of Los Angeles

49 Cal. App. 3d 45 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 1975

The state’s immunity from local regulations is merely an extension of the concept of sovereign immunity. … The Legislature has authorized the establishment of state college police. (Ed. Code, § 24651.)

Wood v. County of San Joaquin

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 340 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2003

waterskier would not be able to sue the public entity for not establishing proper boating and [water-skiing] areas.” … (See Osgood, supra, 50 Cal.App.3d at pp. 590-591 [where a plaintiff, stymied by an immunity, attempted to establish independent liability under § 815.6]; see 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep., supra, at p. 841.)

All Angels Preschool/Daycare v. County of Merced

197 Cal. App. 4th 394 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2011

Penal Code section 11167, subdivision (d)(1), clearly meets this criterion. … Campbell’s identity, it was clearly an action within the scope of the employee’s employment that was taken in connection with the investigation of alleged child neglect.

Garcia v. Lacey

231 Cal. App. 4th 402 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 12, 2014

Appellant also objected to the request that security be furnished, arguing that respondents had failed to establish that his claims had no reasonable probability of success. … Clearly, each IFP application was merely incidental to, and an adjunct of, the proposed filing by appellant of a complaint—with that complaint constituting the prospective action or proceeding. 11 Since we decide this

Crum v. Compton Unif. School Dist. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal · Mar 5, 2014

Moran’s right to denounce her employer’s outreach program was not clearly established, thus qualified immunity protected her employer from civil damages. (Ibid.) … her burden of alleging that the rights she claims were, at the time of her dismissal, so clearly established as to preclude a finding of qualified immunity.

People v. Doggett

83 Cal. App. 2d 405 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1948

It. clearly appears that the physical objects appearing in both groups of photographs are the same. … Unlike those involved in the first count these pictures do not clearly or definitely show a violation of section 286.

White v. State of California

17 Cal. App. 3d 621 · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 1971

He contends the word “proper” is consistent with a qualified privilege (Saroyan v. … The chief problem is the determination of *628 the officials who should receive the complete immunity.

Dawson v. Williams

127 Cal. App. 2d 38 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 4, 1954

Appellant contends on this appeal that the evidence indicates so clearly the respondent driver was contributorily negligent that we must reverse the' judgment. … There is nothing implicit in section 551 that grants immunity to a vehicle which yields to cars approaching on one-half of a cross-street.

Brown v. Superior Court

168 Cal. App. 3d 489 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1985

“To *499 declare that the immunity is to be set aside when either the staff doctor or the hospital are parties to the malpractice proceeding would not only achieve an absurd result, but would render sterile the immunity provisions … Grant, M.D., with directions to grant discovery of those items, (2) the contents of Hospital’s administrative file not clearly containing proscribed materials, with directions to require real parties in interest to establish

McKenna v. Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Inc.

93 Cal. App. 3d 282 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1979

“Upon appellate review of an order granting a new trial, ‘all intendments are in favor of the action taken by the lower court [and] the affidavits in behalf of the prevailing party are deemed not only to establish the facts … “This section shall not grant immunity from civil damages when the person is grossly negligent.”

Naegele v. RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co.

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 666 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 18, 2000

In support of the demurrers, respondents asked the court to take judicial notice of answers to interrogatories establishing that Brigham was diagnosed with lung cancer in October 1996 and Pavolini was diagnosed with lung … Again, established principles guide our analysis. A statute has retroactive or retrospective effect if it substantially changes the legal effect of past events. ( Kizer v.

Prilliman v. United Air Lines, Inc.

53 Cal. App. 4th 935 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 25, 1997

Code, § 12940 et seq.), United “reasonably accommodated” plaintiffs after United learned that plaintiffs had been diagnosed with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). *941 Factual and Procedural Background Inasmuch … The position must be clearly inconsistent so that one necessarily excludes the other.

Ware v. Culp

24 Cal. App. 2d 22 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 10, 1937

She utterly failed to establish any such relationship. The evidence in this case appears to be just the contrary. … Clearly the hospital is not liable for such conduct over which it possessed no authority. In that regard the nurse was not acting as the employee of the hospital. In the ease of Timbell v.

McAllister v. Los Angeles Unified School District

216 Cal. App. 4th 1198 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 3, 2013

While the first factor does not clearly dictate against recognition of a claim under the Constitution, section 2(a), the second factor militates strongly against it. … Thus, recognition of a constitutional tort action would significantly change established tort law. Further, as set forth in Motevalli v.

Platz v. Marion

35 Cal. App. 241 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1917

The acts referred to are as much and as clearly within his judicial functions or powers as any act which the law gives him the authority to perform as a judicial officer. … as follows : “A judge of limited jurisdiction is not personally liable for issuing a warrant of arrest which he had no authority to do, in a case of which he had jurisdiction of the subject matter, if someone apparently qualified