Case law

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

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

Trewin v. State of California

150 Cal. App. 3d 975 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1984

Papelian held that determination by the DMV to issue or not to issue a driver’s license pursuant to Vehicle Code section 12805 was a discretionary act, and therefore the State of California was immune from liability for any … Appellants argued to the trial court that they had evidence including but not limited to the observations of the DMV examiner that would establish that Wood was not qualified for a driver’s license and this was known to respondent

Gibson v. State of California

184 Cal. App. 2d 6 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 1960

The argument that the error is not prejudicial because section 544 may be considered as doing no more than establishing a standard of care for determining ordinary negligence cannot be sustained. … sovereign immunity was not affected.

Blackburn v. Superior Court

21 Cal. App. 4th 414 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1993

And that’s clearly within the statute of limitations. … and declaration as conclusively establishing that an immunity order as described in the notice cannot be issued because it would or might unduly hamper criminal prosecution of the witness.”

Valley Title Co. v. San Jose Water Co.

57 Cal. App. 4th 1490 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 25, 1997

Initially, the parties agree that section 774, establishing immunity for water corporations such as SJWC, must be read in conjunction with three Government Code sections (850, 850.2 & 850.4) which define immunity for public … Valley argues, in essence, (1) that section 774 “does not mention non-fire liability, much less clearly provide immunity for non-fire liability,” (2) that Razeto was incorrectly decided and construes only section 850.4, which

The Regents of the U. of Cal. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 13, 2024

If it does, we assess whether the complaint clearly discloses a defense or bar to recovery. (See’s Candies, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 66, 76.) … We conclude the complaint clearly discloses the Regents’ immunity from the City’s planning code, barring the Coalition’s recovery as a matter of law. I.

California DUI Lawyers Assn. v. Cal. Dept. of Motor Vehicles

California Court of Appeal · Apr 15, 2022

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … With respect to the first cause of action (section 1983), the trial court concluded the doctrine of qualified immunity did not shield the director of the DMV from liability, but found in favor of the director because there

Department of Corporations v. Superior Court

63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 624 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 26, 2007

Finally, the court ruled that there was no specific grant of statutory immunity that protected the DOC from the investors’ claim. (See Creason v. … Clearly, the Legislature may, when enacting legislation, provide that the new law creates only specifically enumerated private rights of action, and otherwise leaves the available legal remedies unchanged.

MacKay v. Superior Court

188 Cal. App. 4th 1427 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2010

The court ultimately issued a ruling declining to reach the legal issue, as the evidence failed to clearly establish that 21st Century’s use of accident verification had been approved by the DOI. … The McBride-Grunsky Act did more than immunize insurers from antitrust laws.

Western Pioneer Insurance v. Estate of Taira

136 Cal. App. 3d 174 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 1982

“It is a general rule of construction applicable to codes and other statutes alike that, unless the intention to make it retrospective clearly appears from the act itself, a *181 statute will not be construed to have that … Ill The Result Is Not Affected by Statutory Immunities and Dual Capacity Doctrine or Section 825 of Government Code The state urges that it is immune from a duty to indemnify because of the provisions of Labor Code section

Wilcox v. Superior Court

27 Cal. App. 4th 809 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 16, 1994

Although the statute clearly places the burden on the plaintiff or cross-complainant to establish a probability of prevailing on the claim (§ 425.16, subd. … The only question is whether the protection is absolute or qualified. Courts which have considered defamation claims in the context of the right to petition have generally applied a qualified immunity. (Kahn v.

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

Diola v. State Board of Control

135 Cal. App. 3d 580 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1982

A procedure for filing and establishing the claim is set out. (§ 4901 to § 4906.) Claimant seeks review of the board’s compliance with these procedures. … The board is quite obviously not a legislative committee and gains no immunity from judicial review thereby.

DeAryan v. Butler

119 Cal. App. 2d 674 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 13, 1953

The Director of Public Health must be *681 fully qualified in this field. ( 101 and 107.) … Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 [ 25 S.Ct. 358 , 49 L.Ed. 643 ]. [9] It does not clearly appear from the evidence produced that the ordinance is a plain, palpable invasion of the rights secured to petitioner by

Knighten v. Sam's Parking Valet

206 Cal. App. 3d 69 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1988

The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend, on the grounds of uncertainty and failure to plead facts establishing duty. … Clearly, this “premises liability” cause of action would impose a duty to control intoxicated patrons, and must fall with appellants’ negligence claims.

Gonzales v. Superior Court

117 Cal. App. 3d 57 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 1980

it clearly appears from a consideration of all the circumstances in the case that an answer to the challenged question cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate the witness. … This brings us to the subject of use immunity. Such a procedure is recognized and well established in this state. The proposition was the subject of extended discussion in People v.

In Re Hartmann

25 Cal. App. 2d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1938

commerce . . . among the several states”; that the ordinance violates article XIY, section 1, of the federal Constitution, which provides that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities … The distinction between that ordinance and the one involved in the present proceeding is clearly pointed out in both the Haskell and the Robinson opinions.

Ibarra v. California Coastal Commission

182 Cal. App. 3d 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1986

cause of action and failed to state facts sufficient to overcome the Commission’s immunity. … Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, 247 [ 115 Cal.Rptr. 497 , 524 P.2d 1281 ]: “Even the most cursory examination of the [1972 Coastal] Act reveals that determination of whether an applicant qualifies for a permit is entrusted

State of Oregon v. Superior Court

24 Cal. App. 4th 1550 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1994

In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court explained: “It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established … Their purpose was to establish that medical care was promised.