Case law

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.

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.

Samuel v. Stevedoring Services of America

24 Cal. App. 4th 414 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 25, 1994

Further, California decisional authority clearly holds that the denial of a dismissal motion may not be reviewed prior to trial via direct appeal. (Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. … The States thus have great latitude to establish the structure and jurisdiction of their own courts. [Citations.]

Hoffman v. Young

California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2020

The majority and I agree the land upon which the accident occurred qualifies for section 846 immunity and that it is the landowner who must “expressly invite[]” the person subsequently injured. (Ibid.) … “[T]he Legislature has demonstrated that, if it intends to establish [a certain] requirement[], it knows how to draft statutory language expressly doing so.”

Curtis v. Cty. of LA

California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 2013

With respect to any harm arising from the lack of a center median, respondent established its entitlement to design immunity, by showing that an authorized official exercised his discretional authority to approve plans for … the subject road constituted dangerous conditions of public property; (2) appellants failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to causation; and (3) respondent was entitled to design immunity as to whether the lack

The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 2018

The Court’s analysis in Regents indicates a plaintiff must prove three elements to establish breach of this duty. … witness declarations In support of her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Rosen provided declarations from two expert witnesses who concluded that Thompson’s behavior prior to the attack clearly

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.

In Re Willon

47 Cal. App. 4th 1080 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1996

At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court informed petitioners that they were being cited for contempt, based on the following findings: "You have been informed that the qualified immunity set forth in Evidence Code … prejudicial publicity which "saturated" the community and disrupted the courtroom, the defendant was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. ( Id. at p. 363 [16 L.Ed.2d at pp. 620-621].) (7) As the trial court observes, Sheppard clearly

People v. Gwillim

223 Cal. App. 3d 1254 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1990

Code, § 3300 et seq.). 5 Government Code section 3303 establishes the “conditions” of interrogation “[w]hen any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his commanding officer, or any … City of Los Angeles (1988) 47 Cal.3d 195, 200 [ 252 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 763 P.2d 480 ] [case involving Officer Lybarger’s partner in which the court referred to “the qualified nature of his right to remain silent . . .”].)

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.

Love v. State Dept. of Education

California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 2018

against 10 specific diseases and “[a]ny other disease deemed appropriate by the [California Department of Public Health],”6 or qualifies for an exemption recognized by statute. (§§ 120335, subds. … burden, are questions which the legislature must decide upon its own judgment, and in respect to which it is invested with a large discretion, which cannot be controlled by the courts, except, perhaps, when its action is clearly

County of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2024

We need not reach the question of immunity because we find no duty. (See Davidson v. … thus would be liable in the absence of such immunity”].)

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

Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego

4 Cal. App. 5th 103 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 14, 2016

Here, as we have explained, the statutory interpretation adopted by the CEQA Guidelines is not clearly unauthorized and is not clearly erroneous, as that interpretation is a reasonable way of harmonizing CEQA's statutory … Although we disagree with Rominger's conclusion that section 21080 establishes that certain categories of public agency activities will always necessarily qualify as projects under CEQA, we express no opinion on whether the

Land Waste Management v. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

222 Cal. App. 3d 950 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 2, 1990

Government Code section 818.4 states the corresponding immunity for government entities. These statutes are clearly applicable to the respondents in this case. … ‘[T]he permit process clearly involves the application of existing rules to a specific set of existing facts.’ [Citation.]

People v. Dennis

177 Cal. App. 3d 863 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 21, 1986

Use immunity rules, such as that fashioned in Coleman , have been frequently adopted in analogous situations. In Bryan v. … The law clearly favors such disclosure.

Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians

California Court of Appeal · Sep 29, 2021

It further argued that the Tribal Council resolution that this court held was a waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity “expressly repudiated state court jurisdiction over disputes,” and did not “evidence an intent to clearly … Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1016 [order granting attorney fees qualifies as appealable collateral order]; Serrano v.

People Ex Rel. Feuer v. FXS Management, Inc.

2 Cal. App. 5th 1154 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 30, 2016

Proposition D provides that within the City of Los Angeles, it is “unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana business, or to participate as an employee, contractor … of a medical marijuana cooperative, collective, dispensary, operator, establishment, or provider.”

Courtesy Ambulance Service v. Superior Court

8 Cal. App. 4th 1504 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 21, 1992

We are not authorized to add exceptions where the Legislature has spoken clearly to prescribe a rule and narrowly limit the exceptions thereto. … This rule was established in Burum v. State Compensation Ins.

Shearin v. Brown

217 Cal. App. 4th 1114 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 11, 2013

The ruling on the demurrer involved whether plaintiff had pleaded facts sufficient to support his section 1983 claims, including whether he had stated facts sufficient to avoid the bar of the qualified immunity doctrine. … Again, the ruling on the demurrer involved the factual and legal merits of certain claims, i.e., whether the section 1983 claims were barred by the qualified immunity doctrine, but the ruling on the certification motion involved