Case law

Automatic Canteen Co. v. Department of Agriculture

247 Cal. App. 2d 18 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 1966

“Persons” as defined by section 4222, clearly refers to a corporation, natural person, association, or other legally established form of business unit; a “division” is not an independent legal entity but rather a corporate … Chapter 17 of the Agricultural Code consistently speaks of a distributor in terms of a person except in one or two instances which it clearly distinguishes, and we therefore perceive that only a person may thus qualify as

People v. Bauman

131 Cal. App. 2d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 18, 1955

No one has held out promises of immunity to get me to take the position that I wish to plead guilty to these two counts. … Kartz nor any other police officer has promised me immunity or reward for pleading guilty now. I am acting freely and voluntarily.

Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles

27 Cal. App. 4th 168 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 29, 1994

This result was clearly never intended by the Legislature. … the immunity of such public employees were not co-extensive.

Neogard Corp. v. Malott & Peterson-Grundy

106 Cal. App. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1980

The testimony established that it was of critical importance to Neogard that its system be applied correctly. … It established relations with and paid commissions to manufacturer’s representatives residing in this state.

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.

Chatterjee v. Kizer

231 Cal. App. 3d 1348 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1991

An episode of serious illness alone does not qualify one for benefits. “. . . … While this would not establish a disability in the sense of inability to work, this court will assume that such a condition of danger qualifies as a disability.

Great Western Casinos, Inc. v. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 828 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 20, 1999

In this case it was clearly the tribe which authorized canceling the management agreement with GWC. On the other hand sovereign immunity does not generally apply to acts of individual tribal members. (Puyallup Tribe v. … of independent Federal regulatory authority for gaming on Indian lands, the establishment of Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands, and the establishment of a National Indian Gaming Commission are necessary to meet

People v. Tracy L.

10 Cal. App. 4th 1454 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 16, 1992

“The power of government to compel persons to testify in court or before grand juries and other governmental agencies is firmly established in *1460 Anglo-American jurisprudence.” (Kastigar v. … The issue of whether Torres could have been compelled to testify in exchange for a Penal Code section 1324 immunity was never raised nor discussed. Clearly, Lopez has no contextual application to this case.

Vaughn v. Pine Creek Tungsten Co.

89 Cal. App. 759 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 7, 1928

the note which was the foundation of the action was made in California and by its terms was to be paid in California, and the affidavit of service shows that the service was made in Inyo County in California, by a person qualified … The fact, if it was a fact, that defendant had failed to pay its corporation license tax as required by the laws of California, did not make it immune from service of process in California at a time when it appears to have

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.

Y.C. v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 7, 2021

Nor can there be any genuine question about whether the interview qualifies as an “interrogation” for Fifth Amendment purposes. … (Lead opn., ante, 8 This is why courts distinguish use immunity from derivative use immunity. See, e.g., People v.

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.

People v. Echevarria

11 Cal. App. 4th 444 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 1, 1992

It is equally logical that a convicted felon’s testimony may not be as trustworthy as a nonfelon’s, or that a person with an established bias, interest, or other motive, may not be as trustworthy as someone without such interests … A review of the record demonstrates that appellant’s trial counsel was clearly competent and her effectiveness is readily ascertainable by the fact that, despite an abundance of evidence that appellant actually committed

Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc.

174 Cal. App. 4th 390 · California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2009

The court permitted this procedure but warned counsel that the deposition testimony must establish the requisite foundation. Heuser’s proposed testimony was similar to that of Ordog. … The court found that Gutierrez was qualified as an expert.

Mallett v. Superior Court

6 Cal. App. 4th 1853 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 9, 1992

It found that although the declarations as a whole “established that the judges were acting within their jurisdiction in issuing the order in question,” they “establish a triable issue of fact on the question of whether the … The sheriff was the additional “attendant” uniquely qualified to meet the emergency by training and assigning deputy marshals to meet the court’s security needs.

Kaur v. Dual Arch International CA5

California Court of Appeal · Nov 15, 2024

Therefore, for the reasons articulated by Kachlon, we conclude that the immunity provided by section 2924, subdivision (d) is the qualified common interest immunity of section 47, subdivision (c). … The malice required to defeat section 47 qualified immunity is “ ‘actual malice.’ ” (Taus, at p. 721.; King v. U.S.

Citizens for a Better Eureka v. City of Eureka

California Court of Appeal · Jun 11, 2025

Finally, CBE did not dispute the Tribe’s sovereign immunity but argued that issue was of no relevance as it was not a necessary and indispensable party. … Instead, as we explained, CBE clearly argued and understood that the project at issue in its action was the entire redevelopment of the parking lot into affordable housing. (Ante, Section II.)

People v. Hardy

271 Cal. App. 2d 322 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1969

He was qualified without objection as an expert in the fields of burglary, boosting and till tapping. … The contention is totally without merit because the record clearly indicates that defendant Eastman did not request any such instruction.

Public Utilities Commission v. Superior Court

181 Cal. App. 4th 364 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 26, 2010

Even though the CPUC could be liable, it still could avoid liability on the grounds of statutory immunity. … The CPUC argued in its papers that it is immune as a matter of law under GC §§ 815.2(b), 8[1]8.2, 8[1]8.6 and 820.2. “6.

Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

94 Cal. App. 4th 1110 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2001

PG&E disagreed that this evidence established an “express invitation” under section 846, as opposed to mere permission. In any event, PG&E argued, an invitation from Ms. … Thus, section 846 clearly provides PG&E, an easement holder, with immunity from tort suits by recreational users.