Case law

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.”

People v. Hamilton

49 Cal. App. 30 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 5, 1920

Dec. 253 , it is said by the editor, after referring to the rule that direct and positive evidence is unnecessary to prove the corpus delicti, and the cases in support thereof, that: “This rule is now clearly established, … But a few courts have, by refined distinctions, qualified this doctrine slightly.

City of Orange v. Valenti

37 Cal. App. 3d 240 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1974

These ordinances are clearly discriminatory; they are obviously aimed at stopping the establishment of the unemployment insurance office, even though the pre-existing zoning would permit the use. … This immunity stems from the sovereignty of the state, as does the exemption from local regulations.

Domingue v. Presley of Southern California

197 Cal. App. 3d 1060 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1988

It is the moving party’s burden in this case to provide evidence of the defense they are attempting to establish. … Their evidence establishes that this is a construction site where the land has been developed preparatory to erection of houses. It does not establish as a matter of law that this is a recreational land.

People v. Pineda

30 Cal. App. 3d 860 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 1973

Shells (1971) 4 Cal.3d 626 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 275 , 483 P.2d 1227 ])) and where, by sheer invocation such defense could have been conclusively established. … The cases interpreting this code section emphasize that the purpose of the immunity statutes is to make it possible to reach the leaders of criminal conspiracies by guaranteeing immunity to the underlings and minor helpers

Mateo-Woodburn v. Fresno Community Hospital & Medical Center

221 Cal. App. 3d 1169 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1990

The action was clearly quasi-legislative in nature. The principle applicable here was initially stated in Willis v. Santa Ana etc. Hosp. … Accordingly, the contract is immune from attack in the abstract on this ground.

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

Hepe v. Paknad

199 Cal. App. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1988

Cabrol , since that decision clearly and categorically establishes that “no other exceptions are to be implied.” In the process, it also overruled Burke. (Strang v.Cabrol, supra, at pp. 725, 728.) … Moreover, the Ewing decision *422 preceded the amendments to section 25602 which created statutory immunity.

United States of Mexico v. Rask

118 Cal. App. 21 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 1931

A marked distinction between the doctrine of sovereign immunity as adopted in England and in the United States clearly appears from the decisions of the courts of the two countries. … Sovereign immunity was again claimed through the Department of Justice, this time in accordance with the established practice.

Perez v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 8, 2024

This provision establishes what is commonly referred to as canal immunity. With important limitations, it immunizes the government against liability for injuries caused by the condition of canals, conduits, or drains. … provisions of section 831.8 establish that immunity applies to people who knowingly use a canal, conduit or drain “despite being aware of the potentially dangerous nature of the water feature.”

People v. Braum

California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2020

(Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, subdivision (d).) 3 Among other persons, the MPA immunized qualified caregivers and persons with identification cards5 who cooperatively cultivated marijuana … Because there were “substantially more than 70 collectives in operation that could qualify under the grandfather clause . . .

Shoemaker v. Myers

2 Cal. App. 4th 1407 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 28, 1992

Since section 19683 is directed chiefly, if not exclusively, against state employees otherwise protected by section 821.6 immunity, and since its terms may clearly be violated by taking formal disciplinary proceedings against … Clearly, the claim submitted to the Department presaged allegations in the third (Tameny) count of violation of the Officers Rights Act.

Axline v. Saint John's Hospital and Health Center

63 Cal. App. 4th 907 · California Court of Appeal · May 6, 1998

those provided in the statutory immunities. … Axline has the burden of showing *917 that he was qualified. The procedures afforded also differ. Dr.

Jenkins v. COUNTY OF LAS ANGELES

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 149 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 23, 1999

We conclude that the language “In any action for damages based on negligence . . .” in section 3333.3 is unambiguous and clearly is intended to limit the immunity to causes of action sounding in negligence, rather than to … A provision of section 847, similar to section 3333.3, requires the property owner invoking the immunity to establish that the plaintiff had been charged with commission of an enumerated felony, and that he or she subsequently

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

92 Cal. Rptr. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 2000

Clearly, the court found the damage award reasonable because it was intended to compensate Pool for the physical and emotional injuries he continued to suffer after his release from jail. … Ritchey (5th Cir. 1977) 556 F.2d 1185, 1193 .) 7 Of course, if the police engage in fresh misconduct, for which they have no qualified immunity, after the plaintiff has been arrested and charged, they would obviously be liable

Tormey v. Miller

31 Cal. App. 469 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 19, 1916

The contention so urged is clearly in harmony with the construction placed by the courts upon certain provisions of the bankruptcy law. … altered by the discharge of such bankrupt.” 0 The courts have uniformly held, in cases like the present, that, under the foregoing sections, while the adjudication, when pleaded, will, of course, have the effect of granting immunity

Pacific Bell v. City of San Diego

96 Cal. Rptr. 2d 897 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2000

Second, if the Tort Claims Act immunities do not apply, under inverse condemnation principles is City strictly liable for damages caused by its bursting pipe or must the claimant establish City’s unreasonable conduct? … On the other hand, the damage potential of a defective public flood control project is clearly enormous.

Close v. Tan CA1/3

California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2021

officer would believe to be necessary under the circumstances”; (2) Close “did not have a clearly established right to be free of some minimal amount of force incident to her arrest”; and (3) a reasonable officer in Tan’ … conduct violated a constitutional right; and second, the court considers whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

Hardin v. PDX, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 21, 2014

Treatment with this medication should be stopped unless it is clearly determined that the medicine did not cause the rash. … It has not been established at this juncture that WKH’s monographs are “truthful summaries” of official FDA proceedings, that they qualify as “public journals” for purposes of the section 47, subdivision (d) privilege, or