Case law

Tuthill v. City of San Buenaventura

223 Cal. App. 4th 1081 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 10, 2014

for AHP units because their income levels exceeded AHP qualifying income levels. … The "Mandatory Legal Duty" Exception To qualify for the exception, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of an enactment that imposes a mandatory, not discretionary, duty on the public entity and (2)

Newton v. County of Napa

217 Cal. App. 3d 1551 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 14, 1990

Appellants argue that, if they can establish that no emergency existed, the county is not immune from liability. … Federal law recognizes both a qualified and an absolute immunity of public officials.

Tindall v. County of Nevada

California Court of Appeal · Jun 18, 2025

(See Allyson, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 1313 [§ 815’s “language is plain,” “unambiguous,” and “clearly intended to ensure that applicable immunity provisions of the Tort Claims Act will prevail over its liability provisions … looking to the Vehicle Code: “Regardless of the fact that a bicycle path may come under the broad brush of being part of the streets and highway system in general,” the type of path the bicyclist was riding on “d[id] not qualify

People v. Galambos

128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 2002

As for others, he could have attempted to qualify as a primary caregiver for particular individuals whom he wanted to help, but failed to qualify himself for this legal alternative. … Defendant did not qualify as a primary caregiver under this statute.

Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles

243 Cal. App. 4th 1029 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 13, 2016

The MMPA expands the criminal immunities of the CUA; qualified patients are now immune from liability for violating six different sections of the Health and Safety Code. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.765.) … Appellants do not clearly identify the ordinance under which they claim to have obtained legal nonconforming use rights.

Fellows v. Superior Court

108 Cal. App. 3d 55 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 10, 1980

VI The Question of Whether Plaintiffs Failed to Make an Adequate Showing of the Preliminary Facts to Establish That the Documents Sought by Defendants Qualified as “Work Product” or Whether Such Documents Came Within the … It would appear, therefore, that each document in question might fall into one of three categories: (1) as being immune from discovery by reason of the absolute portion of the privilege, (2) as *68 being immune from discovery

O'TOOLE v. Superior Court

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 531 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 14, 2006

Section 820.6 is a qualified immunity; it applies when a public employee acts “in good faith, without malice, and under the apparent authority of an enactment that is unconstitutional, invalid or inapplicable . . . .” … Plaintiffs argue this belief was unreasonable because courts have “clearly established” that peaceful demonstrators cannot constitutionally be excluded from university grounds based on a disruptive audience reaction.

Breazeal v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

234 Cal. App. 3d 1329 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1991

Here, nonsuit was granted on grounds that the evidence established the defendants’ affirmative defense of Good Samaritan immunity under sections 2395 and 2396. … Where such an urgent need of care persisted in order to preserve life after death had been narrowly avoided, the emergency circumstances clearly persisted. *1342 3.

People v. Wesley

224 Cal. App. 3d 1130 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 1990

Clearly, Judge Alston had already made up his mind to grant the motion, and all he really asked the prosecutor was if she had anything to point out that he had overlooked in his analysis. … The inclusion of “sellers” clearly contemplated the kind of “reverse sting” used here.

Wadley v. County of Los Angeles

205 Cal. App. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1962

First, it should be pointed out that in the Muskopf case, supra, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the doctrine of sovereign governmental immunity as established by court rule and governmental immunity established … Plaintiff asserts that the claims provisions are clearly statutes of limitation and that they are void because they establish a different limitation in the case of actions against public agencies as distinguished from those

Hernandez v. State of California

11 Cal. App. 3d 895 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1970

First, the act of keeping records and determining what facts should be recorded in the care, treatment, testing, examination, and diagnosis of mental patients does not qualify as an exact science but rather involves elements … In our view the purported causes of action for negligent prescription and for negligent diagnosis are clearly barred by the specific immunity provisions of Government Code section 855.8, subdivision (a): “Neither a public

McNair v. City and County of San Francisco

5 Cal. App. 5th 1154 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2016

Next, we determine whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. … Immunizing Dr. Kim from potential liability in this case for disclosing her public safety concerns to the DMV clearly advances this policy.

Cryolife, Inc. v. Superior Court

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2003

(a).) 4 A general demurrer will lie where the complaint “has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. … Therefore, the key question is whether Cryolife qualifies for protection under section 425.13 as a health dispensary. Cryolife relies upon the decision in Coe v.

People v. Doss

4 Cal. App. 4th 1585 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1992

Clearly, a pharmacist who purchases controlled substances with the intention of distributing them to persons not holding valid prescriptions is not conducting the ordinary business of the pharmacy, and the drugs are not “ … He had qualified as an expert witness six times concerning the possession, manufacture, and possession for sale of scheduled pharmaceuticals.

Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1989

Clearly a controversy exists.” (Recommendation, supra, at pp. G-34, G-35.) … Such an approach again would qualify arbitral immunity.

Lowry v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

185 Cal. App. 3d 188 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 1986

The above language of section 1317 clearly discloses that the Legislature intended to grant the designated members of a hospital emergency team immunity pursuant to the terms of the statute. … [because] [e]ven if the physician does not remotely qualify as a ‘medical volunteer,’ he is still provided with immunity from civil liability.”

West v. State of California

181 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1986

These defendants are protected by discretionary licensing immunity and are not liable for plaintiffs’ damages. … The contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency responsible for its implementation and interpretation is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous. (Davenport v.

Wood v. Emmerson

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 12, 2007

On July 28, 2004, the trial court found defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity. … The court stated no issue remained to be tried concerning qualified immunity.

Cuff v. Grossmont Union High School District

221 Cal. App. 4th 582 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2013

We conclude that Saunders's conduct does not qualify for immunity under the applicable statutes. We therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants. … However, this provision clearly does not immunize a mandatory reporter's conduct that does not comply with the strict confidentiality provisions of the statute.

Alvarez v. State of California

95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 719 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 19, 1999

if the State established initial immunity, changed conditions defeated design immunity. … Loss of Design Immunity Early cases construing section 830.6 held that design immunity would apply perpetually even though changed circumstances clearly revealed the defects of the plan.