Case law

Neal v. County of Shasta CA3

California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2013

Plaintiff presents a vague argument that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not protect the County. … The court noted that the deprivation of property did not occur as a result of an established state procedure, but as a result of the unauthorized failure of agents to follow established procedure. (Id. at p. 543.)

In Re the Marriage of Baltins

212 Cal. App. 3d 66 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1989

A court applying equitable principles should not compound the miscarriage of justice by immunizing such a judgment from attack. … Equally important, if judgments were wholly immune it would give powerful incentive to use of fraudulent tactics in obtaining a judgment.

Bent Bros., Inc. v. Campbell

101 Cal. App. 456 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1929

With these statements as a premise, we think the conclusion clearly follows that the act of the legislature approved June 10, 1929, is constitutional in all its essential provisions, as not only a proper, but as a necessary … Liberty implies an absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of the community. ...

LAOSD Asbestos Cases CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Feb 11, 2026

Longo’s expert opinion is clearly invalid and unreliable. [¶] I do find from his extended testimony and the foundation established, that as a matter of logic, the studies and other information he relied upon, adequately support … We note that as part of qualifying as an expert, Dr.

People v. Randazzo

220 Cal. App. 2d 768 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 1963

Speaking of the Fourth Amendment the court said: “Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than … Public employees and governmental bodies enjoy certain immunities which generally foreclose the possibility of civil actions.

Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Valley Racing Ass'n

4 Cal. App. 4th 1538 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 6, 1992

The base or base of the thing is the point at which something else is established or constructed. … Clearly, HBPA has a significant interest in these proceedings.

People v. Bailey

30 Cal. App. 581 · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1916

Black, since a time prior to July 22, 1908, has been and now is the duly appointed and qualified captain of police of the police department of the city of San Jose, and that he -was illegally removed from said office by the … It could have founded its judgment on the theory entertained by it that the affidavit filed by petitioner stated grounds for relief, and that its allegations had been established by the evidence.

Douglas v. Ostermeier

1 Cal. App. 4th 729 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 1991

Appellants objected to Patricia Douglas’s testimony as lacking foundation, contending she was not qualified as an expert. … Under the standards established in prior California cases, the punitive damages award of $187,000 is well within a reasonable range (see, e.g., Devlin v.

Staples v. Hoefke

189 Cal. App. 3d 1397 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 3, 1987

The lease provision having clearly provided for reasonable attorney’s fees, the award of such fees to defendant Hoefke was clearly proper, regardless of whatever separate arrangements existed to provide a defense for him. … “For a third party to qualify as a beneficiary under a contract, the contracting parties must have intended to benefit that third party, and their intent must appear from the terms of the contract.” (Kirst v.

In re Kirchner

California Court of Appeal · Feb 23, 2016

'[E]ven the use of impeccable factfinding procedures could not legitimate a verdict' where 'the conduct being penalized is constitutionally immune from punishment.' … Nor could the use of flawless sentencing procedures legitimate a punishment where the Constitution immunizes the defendant from the sentence imposed.

Herren v. George S.

California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 2025

Longstanding case law recognizes, for example, that “[s]oundness of mind and body does not imply immunity from undue influence. … Moore’s testimony also established that, after the meeting, George looked drained, hungry, and tired.

Dawn D. v. Superior Court

17 Cal. 4th 932 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 6, 1998

Robertson never clearly decided to what extent the unwed father in that case had a protected liberty interest in the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, nor was it necessary for the court to do so. … Arguably, Jerry would qualify as an “interested party” for purposes of bringing an action to establish Frank’s nonpaternity under subdivision (d) of section 7611.

Raef v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court

240 Cal. App. 4th 1112 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2015

Special Treatment of the Press The First Amendment does not immunize the press from “the enforcement of civil or criminal statutes of general applicability.” (Branzburg v. … Ordinarily, a person who engages in conduct “‘that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others,’” but that requirement has been relaxed in the First Amendment context

Visitacion Investment v. 424 Jessie Historic Properties

California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 2023

Union Pacific sold the JHP property only after determining that the property qualified as “excess property,” meaning that Union Pacific no longer used it for “operating railroad purposes.” … “[W]e exercise an independent review to determine if the defendant moving for summary judgment met its burden of establishing a complete defense or of negating each of the plaintiff’s theories and establishing that the action

Hamilton v. Stockton Unified School District

245 Cal. App. 2d 944 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1966

The handbook states on page 7: “The powers and duties of a local board of education are clearly defined by the California Education Code. … board action established a “system of permanency” and that Hamilton’s rights vested under that system and may not now be repudiated by the district.

Jones v. Los Angeles Community College District

198 Cal. App. 3d 794 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1988

Moreover, the complaint clearly alleges that the defendants were indeed acting within the course and scope of employment. … Even assuming that the District is a public entity and the individuals are public employees within the purview of Government Code section 825, that section does not provide that the employees are immune from liability, but

Schabarum v. California Legislature

60 Cal. App. 4th 1205 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1998

“To restore a free and democratic system of fair elections, and to encourage qualified candidates to seek public office, the people find and declare that the powers of incumbency must be limited. … It was not until the eve of World War I that legislative legal services were formally established.” (Wilson, California’s Legislature (1994 ed.) p. 123.)

Joseph v. City of Atwater

California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2022

That provision addresses removal of a chief of police from office and clearly applies to the removal of plaintiff from that office. … ” and (5) the proponent of a particular fact to bear the burden of establishing it.

Central Valley Hospitalists v. Dignity Health

California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 2018

‘Peer review liability privilege’ refers to the limited immunity to suit granted with respect to certain communications (when made without malice) related to evaluation of medical personnel, as granted by California Civil … aspect of a hospital peer review proceeding involves protected 18 activity, but only whether statements in connection with but outside the course of such a proceeding can qualify

Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2015

Primary assumption of risk does not provide absolute immunity. A participant and an owner/operator still owe certain duties of care. … In moving for summary judgment, Haunted Hotel had the burden to establish: (1) primary assumption of risk applied to this recreational activity; and (2) the undisputed evidence established as a matter of law Haunted Hotel