Case law

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.

Hernandez v. Modesto Portuguese Pentecost Assn.

40 Cal. App. 4th 1274 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1995

We then determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which justify a judgment in movant’s favor. … There exists one exception to this statutory immunity.

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

People v. Harvey

163 Cal. App. 3d 90 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 21, 1984

The prosecutor clearly possessed a motive to exclude black jurors in that the defendant was black while the victims were white. … Sua Sponte Instruction on Immunized Witness Focusing on the testimony of Ray Donaldson, Harvey contends he was entitled to a sua sponte instruction that because Donaldson received immunity from prosecution in exchange for

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

California Court of Appeal · Dec 3, 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. Self

204 Cal. App. 4th 1054 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 4, 2012

conviction under California law and (2) the evidence was insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Arizona offense was a qualifying prior conviction. … He also claims there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his Arizona conviction was a qualifying conviction in California.

Iloh v. The Regents of the U. of Cal.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2023

As explained below, the requested communications qualify as public records under the CPRA, and the professor did not establish the records are otherwise exempt from disclosure. … The parties do not dispute that UCI, as a public university, qualifies as a state agency.

People v. Anderson

35 Cal. App. 4th 587 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1995

Clearly, the Legislature intended that the qualifying status of a conviction would be fixed upon the date of the prior conviction, so that no subsequent actions, including those listed in subdivision (d)(l)(A)-(D), could … Defendant clearly knew his appellate rights would be so limited.

Children's Hospital Society v. Industrial Accident Commission

22 Cal. App. 2d 365 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1937

They have immunization serums that promised much, but so far we haven’t gained much headway.” It was further established by Dr. … Thus it will be seen that the record clearly establishes two facts: First, that very little, if anything, is known about poliomyelitis; and, second, that to conclude from the evidence adduced at the hearing1 that the alleged

People v. Keller

212 Cal. App. 2d 210 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1963

It was later established that this was the name of a shoe repair and shoe shine business conducted by Keller (who was known as “Blood”) and McGowan (who was known to his friends as “T. L.”). … Although the statute does refer to a person who “refuses to answer a question,” thereby suggesting that the immunity order should be made with *220 respect to a particular question, the immunity granted will apply to “any

Salasguevara v. Frye

31 Cal. App. 4th 330 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 1995

Given the clearly stated legislative intent to achieve “total immunization of appropriate age groups” (§ 3381, subd. … In other words, section 3381 does not establish the time at which the requirement attaches.

Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n

39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 43 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2006

We conclude that the defendants have demonstrated that the Noerr-Pennington immunity applies to each cause of action. There is an exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity: it does not apply to sham activities. (Wilson v. … But Plaintiffs do not rely on that exception here and present no evidence establishing its applicability.

Barragan v. Banco Bch

188 Cal. App. 3d 283 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 1986

We also discuss the reasons the bank failed to establish grounds for relief from entry of the default. … the burden of establishing none of the exceptions apply.

City of Long Beach v. Superior Court

64 Cal. App. 3d 65 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 23, 1976

Clearly, the complete list of trial witnesses sought in this case is a derivative product developed as a result of the initiative of counsel in preparing for trial. … to allow inspection of ‘notes made by the district attorney’ relating to ‘notes, memoranda, or records pertaining to the interviews, dates [and] persons present between the district attorney^ office’ and the [particular] immunized

Fontani v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC

28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 833 · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 2005

Fontani argues that a Form U-5 in this setting is entitled to qualified, not absolute, immunity under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). … He relies entirely on out-of-state cases granting qualified immunity to Form U-5’s under foreign privilege statutes. (See, e.g., Glennon, supra, 83 F.3d at p. 137 ; Dawson v. New York Life Ins.

Barker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 531 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2001

‘The presumption against implied repeal is so strong that, “To overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the two cannot have concurrent operation. … While generally the statute of limitations for a wrongful death accrues upon the death of the individual, accrual may be delayed if the plaintiff establishes the defendant fraudulently concealed facts that would have led

Salazar v. Upland Police Department

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 22 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 10, 2004

We conclude the probable cause stipulation is admissible and establishes there was probable cause for plaintiff’s arrest. … As to those causes of actions that were not affected by the stipulation, governmental immunities applied which rendered the claims clearly meritless from their inception.

Washburn v. City of Berkeley

195 Cal. App. 3d 578 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 1987

She then argues that the right to petition “clearly compels the conclusion that ballot arguments concerning a petition for a redress of grievances . . . are absolutely immune against claims for damages or fees by opponents … In light of Bozek, Rabkin’s contention that her right to petition gave her absolute immunity from an award of fees must fail.

Doe v. County of Orange

California Court of Appeal · Sep 2, 2025

Examples include “[i]n communications between qualified professional persons” (§ 5328, subd. (a)(1)(A)), to courts, “as necessary to the administration of justice” (§ 5328, subd. … The Court of Appeal affirmed the apportionment and distinguished Richards on the basis that in Richards, the California Supreme Court “concluded that [the immunity statute] did not merely confer immunity from liability for