Case law

Brown v. City of Inglewood

California Court of Appeal · Jun 30, 2023

under Government Code section 820.2 and government act immunity under Government Code section 821. … flies in the face of basic maxims of statutory interpretation, because it asks us to interlineate section 1106 with words that the Legislature chose not to include—words which, based on section 3351, the Legislature is clearly

People v. Native Wholesale Supply Co.

California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 2019

The court found neither tribal immunity nor preemption applied. … We see no support for such an interpretation of the Indian Commerce Clause in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, whose decisions clearly establish that the Indian Commerce Clause does not ‘of its own force

City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba

California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 2013

Code, § 11362.5).15 The CUA provides limited immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of marijuana (§ 11357) and cultivation of marijuana (§ 11358) for two limited classes of persons: those who qualify as medical … The MMP, under section 11362.1, addressed the goal of identifying persons qualified under the CUA by establishing a voluntary identification card program to facilitate ― ‗the prompt identification of qualified patients and

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.

Murphy v. Twitter, Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 2021

This test prevents plaintiffs from avoiding the broad immunity of section 230 through the “ ‘ “creative” pleading’ of barred claims” or using “litigation strategy . . . to accomplish indirectly what Congress has clearly forbidden … have to establish a fair amount of substantive unconscionability in order to prevail.”].)

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.

People v. Lawrence

25 Cal. App. 3d 498 · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1972

A scientific analysis established that the bottles contained sulphuric acid of 94.5 percent concentration. … Defendant requested immunity only as to the killing of one “Joe Cole,” and his participation in hauling two shipments of marijuana to San Francisco. The conspiracy to kill Hudson was clearly a separate transaction.

In Re Carson Bulletin

85 Cal. App. 3d 785 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 25, 1978

App.2d at pp. 598-599): "The effect of the former judgment was to conclusively establish the existence of facts which qualified the Call as a newspaper for the city of Norwalk. … The Legislature has thus clearly declared its intent that a newspaper need not personally notify the city in which it seeks to qualify and that publication in those two specifically cited sources is sufficient.

Scofield v. Critical Air Medicine, Inc.

45 Cal. App. 4th 990 · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 1996

The main issue in Sullivan was whether the action was barred by governmental immunity and the Supreme Court held the county was not immune. (Id., at p. 717.) … Here, the evidence established Erin and Laura suffered actual harm as a result of the false imprisonment.

Franklin v. Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks

97 Cal. App. 3d 915 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1979

One of the several types of privilege which may operate to immunize the publisher of an otherwise libelous statement from liability is the qualified constitutional privilege, founded in the First Amendment and extended to … We think that [New York Times and Butts] are correct, but we do not find their holdings justified solely by reference to the interest of the press and broadcast media in immunity from liability.

Hoffman v. Connell

87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 272 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1999

QTIP stands for “qualified terminable interest property.” ( 26 U.S.C. § 2056 (b)(7)(B)(i).) … Property that qualifies as QTIP property is excluded from the decedent’s gross estate for purposes of federal estate taxes. ( 26 U.S.C. § 2056 (a) and (b)(7)(A)(i).)

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Hart High-Voltage etc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 2017

Specifically, “interest” is defined as follows: “Collectively, the word includes any aggregation of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities; distributively, it refers to any one right, privilege, power, or immunity.” … It is intended to more clearly define ‘damages’ by including indirect charges.” 31.  D. Analysis of Meaning 1.

Rutherford v. State of California

188 Cal. App. 3d 1267 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 9, 1987

Plaintiff must establish: (1) the challenged conduct was committed by a person purporting to act under state law; and (2) this conduct deprived him/her of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws … This employee immunity inures to the benefit of the employing agency under Government Code section 815.2, subdivision (b).

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal · Nov 20, 2020

. [¶] The defendant’s participation in this offense as a principal was clearly established by the testimony of [two named witnesses] and [two named juvenile accomplices].” … However, that case is clearly factually inapposite.

KETCGUM v. State of California

62 Cal. App. 4th 957 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1998

The court overruled the demurrer, finding the State had not established that it had adopted a written pursuit policy. Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Hall. … The policy “must clearly and with specificity set forth standards to guide officers in the field.” (Colvin v. City of Gardena, supra, 11 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1283 .)

Scozzafava v. Lieb

190 Cal. App. 3d 1575 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 10, 1987

Section 31104 is not a substantive immunity source, but a limitation *1579 upon the scope of the immunity granted by sections 31102 and 31103. … Plaintiff having failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Isaacs v.

Lewis-Westco & Co. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

136 Cal. App. 3d 829 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 22, 1982

Whether antitrust immunity is conferred on the price posting scheme under the doctrine of Parker v. … Appeals Bd., supra, 21 Cal.3d 431, 445 ), no antitrust immunity is extended.

Scripps Memorial Hospital v. Superior Court

37 Cal. App. 4th 1720 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1995

To the contrary, the legislative material clearly shows the distinction did not go unnoticed. … Glassman with peer review criticism he diagnosed multiple personality disorder in patients when the diagnosis was not justified would clearly appear to qualify under section 210. [*] Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal

People v. Omori

25 Cal. App. 3d 616 · California Court of Appeal · May 17, 1972

sophisticated terms, appellant simply says that since he is a drug addict and addiction has been recognized as an illness, thus as a protected status by the United States Supreme Court in Robinson , he should be entitled to immunity … We are not willing to extend the Robinson doctrine to embrace compulsive addiction—induced activity such as use, possession or purchase of narcotics, clearly criminal in nature.

People v. Teitelbaum

163 Cal. App. 2d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 26, 1958

While the motion to strike the answer was proper, as the answer was not responsive to the question asked, the court’s ruling on the offer of proof was clearly erroneous. … The district attorney was clearly guilty of misconduct in propounding the question. The answer called for by the question was clearly incompetent for any purpose.