Case law

Kemmerer v. County of Fresno

200 Cal. App. 3d 1426 · California Court of Appeal · May 5, 1988

The documentation presented to the civil service commission, which was before the lower court, establishes the applicability of these immunities. … Superior Court, supra, 69 Cal.2d 782 , those employees and the County are shielded from liability under the immunity established by Government Code section 821.6 hereinabove discussed in detail.

People v. Talkington

140 Cal. App. 3d 557 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 4, 1983

His qualifications were established. Johansen stated he had been dealing with handguns for 25 years. His training had included disassembling and assembling weapons. … Clearly, as the officer opined, the principle of the device was that of the old-fashioned cannon designed to propel some type of missile.

People v. Palacios

California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 2021

For these reasons, the People are not required to establish standing. But even if they were, the People have established standing. … Sufficiency of the evidence Because Alicia was not an accomplice as a matter of law, it was up the jury to decide whether she qualified as an accomplice.

Matthews v. County of San Bernardino

233 Cal. App. 3d 1623 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 1991

summary judgment was based in part on its contention that it neither owned nor controlled the road in question, and, consequently, was not liable to plaintiff on the theory of dangerous condition of public property, plaintiff clearly … Simply stated, section 941 immunizes a county from any claimed nonfeasance regarding its lack of maintaining unaccepted roads.

Let Them Choose v. San Diego Unified School Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2022

It might be a different matter if the statute merely established a set of minimum vaccination requirements, leaving it to local school districts to supplement with additional immunizations they believed necessary to protect … authorize the governing boards of all school districts to initiate and carry on any programs, activities, or to otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with the laws and purposes for which school districts are established

Conley v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of SF

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 679 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 29, 2000

The Act clearly applies to clergy members, is limited in scope and furthers the compelling state interest *1133 of protecting children from abuse. … Here, however, the Legislature has clearly indicated that clergy are mandatory reporters entitled to the protections of subdivision (h) of section 11166.

Mattison v. Lichlyter

162 Cal. App. 2d 60 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1958

It would be difficult to imagine a ease more violative of the policy described in the eases just mentioned, than the case before us, or one more clearly justifying the granting of a proper motion. In Murrey v. … It has been frequently stated that this ‘judicial’ privilege exists as a matter of established public policy and rests upon sound principles of justice and right. (Citing cases.)

Engel v. McCloskey

92 Cal. App. 3d 870 · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 1979

Appellant’s argument that his case could have been determined sooner may well have relevance to his other causes of action, but he has failed to establish an actual violation of rule X. … The wisdom of the determination that the individual interest must give way to the public interest in law enforcement in such cases is not before us, since the Legislature has clearly made that choice in section 821.6.

Sykes v. County of Marin

43 Cal. App. 3d 158 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 1974

Section 835 of the Government Code provides in pertinent part “. . . a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition … Stating (p. 810), “[T]he complaint clearly indicates that the plaintiff’s injuries were not due to any physical or defective condition of the jail itself,” the reviewing court affirmed the judgment based on an order sustaining

Geffcken v. D'ANDREA

41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 80 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 28, 2006

The court found that “he is not qualified to express any relevant opinions.” In addition, it found that Dr. … Ordog qualified as an expert on the subject of adverse health effects caused by exposure to mycotoxins.

Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co.

247 Cal. App. 2d 774 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1967

The circumstances are thus clearly distinguishable from those present in Houghton, supra. … Its extension would be clearly contrary to the trend of recent decisions in this state and elsewhere. (Muskopf v. Corning Hospital Dist, supra).

People v. Randolph

4 Cal. App. 3d 655 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 19, 1970

It was further elicited that Chryar had been told by the district attorney that he would again be given immunity from prosecution, and that such immunity would include immunity from any perjury charges arising out of his … His guilt was firmly established.

Bradford v. Board of Education

18 Cal. App. 19 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1912

Cases arising under these laws and local regulations have come before the courts of those states, and such courts have uniformly held valid reasonable rules adopted by school authorities to prevent the establishment and development … To warrant a court in adjudging the act void on this ground, it must clearly appear that there was no reason sufficient to warrant the legislative department in finding a difference and making the discrimination.”

People v. Thompson

145 Cal. App. 3d 918 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 11, 1983

against the need for the testimony, by invoking its statutory power to determine whether immunity ‘would be clearly contrary to the public interest. ’ (Pen. … Municipal Court (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 889, 893 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 46 ], the record establishes that the Orange County court, at the request of the district attorney, gave defendant what amounts to use immunity—“nothing that the

Rosenthal v. Vogt

229 Cal. App. 3d 69 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1991

The Bar defendants were held immunized from the civil rights claims by federal quasi-judicial immunity, and from the state tort claims by Government Code immunity provisions. … While RICO is a broad statute, violation of its terms cannot be established by hyperbole or rhetoric. Those terms must be given their ordinary meaning. (H.J. Inc. v.

Mast v. State Board of Optometry

139 Cal. App. 2d 78 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 7, 1956

It was clearly relevant for it dealt with the relationship between him and petitioner which had been established by reason of the referrals, and the relationship between petitioner and Mrs. … Roth’s hearsay admission, it clearly fails in the same pattern as does Lieutenant Roth’s affidavit.

People v. Kelly

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 104 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 29, 2007

He maintains a flashlight, a box cutter knife, and a slingshot do not qualify as burglary tools as defined in section 466. … from punishment even where the evidence establishes their intent to use the tool or instrument in their possession to commit burglary.

People v. Perrine

47 Cal. App. 3d 252 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 16, 1975

The fact that Perrine is engaged in an activity protected by the First Amendment does not make him immune to regulations which do not impair his exercise of his constitutionally protected rights. … The ordinance defines the function of a manager clearly enough, leaving to the proprietor the selection of the individual to be employed, from among those holding or able to obtain a manager’s license.

Michael E. L. v. County of San Diego

183 Cal. App. 3d 515 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 1986

By neither of these statutes has the Legislature “clearly” provided for immunity as a matter of law in these circumstances. … Ramos, supra, 4 Cal.3d 685, and Lopez, supra, 40 Cal.3d 780 , hold unless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, liability must prevail.

Susman v. City of Los Angeles

269 Cal. App. 2d 803 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1969

Section 845 of the Government Code relates to the matter of liability with respect to police protection and is as follows: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department … in § 818.2 prevails over statutory entity liabilities that do not clearly indicate otherwise.