Case law

Granowitz v. Redlands Unified School District

129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 410 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 2003

Both those elements were established. … In particular, it eliminates any possibility that plaintiff could have overcome the defense of qualified immunity because plaintiff could not have proved that defendants violated a right “ ‘clearly established at the time

Callahan v. City and County of San Francisco

15 Cal. App. 3d 374 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 18, 1971

Code, § 810 et seq.), plaintiff must establish the elements required by section 835 of the Government Code. … Therefore, neither the City nor its employees would be liable under the immunity provided in Government Code section 830.6.

Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn.

142 Cal. App. 3d 642 · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 1983

More precisely, did the complaint allege facts sufficient to establish that the Association owed a duty to plaintiffs and that the former breached that duty, thereby entitling plaintiffs to some or all of the remedies sought … Moreover, just in case any doubt remained as to the intent to establish the Association’s immunity to suit, Article XVI, section 12 provides: “To the fullest extent permitted by law, neither the Board, any committees of the

People v. Taylor

152 Cal. App. 2d 29 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 1957

to by the expert witness as well as other witnesses, he could give his opinion as such expert provided the subject matter of the hypothetical question clearly ties the other established facts in evidence to the factor respecting … In just what field a criminalist operates is not clearly shown by the record.

People v. Brooks

California Court of Appeal · Jan 30, 2024

Instead, defense counsel focused on immunity, insisting “the prosecution can make [R.J.] available by offering immunity.” … The court replied that the prosecution was not obligated to offer immunity and that refusing to offer immunity “does not make [R.J.] . . . available.”

People v. Ratten

39 Cal. App. 2d 267 · California Court of Appeal · May 27, 1940

The foregoing testimony clearly connects defendant Brown with the four offenses set forth above, counts I to IV, inclusive. … An examination of the record fails to disclose that this defendant made these disclosures to the officers because of *272 duress, threats or a promise of immunity or a hope of reward.

People v. Williams

11 Cal. App. 3d 1156 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1970

Court’s Refusal to Grant Immunity to Witness Chapman. … coconspirator to whom immunity shall be given.

Sanders v. Superior Court

34 Cal. App. 3d 270 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1973

“Consultation between expert and counsel may appropriately be given broad immunity from discovery, both as to expert and as to counsel, because none of the expert’s opinion, professional though it may be, is relevant evidence … The only declarations before us, being those offered by the employee, establish that the records sought by the employer were requested and prepared for use by counsel in trial preparation and are thus clearly work product

People v. Mayer

133 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 30, 2003

At trial, appellant testified that based on his experience in politics, he had learned that “In the real political world, when you established a domicile or residence, you established it with the purpose of spending x-amount … This is not consistent with a good faith belief that a mail drop qualified as a political residence.

People v. Rose

26 Cal. App. 2d 513 · California Court of Appeal · May 24, 1938

This witness, qualified as an expert, gave it as his opinion that the suppository contained more than twenty grains of opium to the avoirdupois ounce. … L. 271.) *519 When a person has proved himself immune to the ordinary modes of punishment inflicted upon first offenders, then it becomes the duty of government not only to seek some other method to curb his criminal propensities

Christina C. v. County of Orange

California Court of Appeal · Oct 29, 2013

Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163 [“mere speculation . . . is insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact”].) … Plaintiffs invoke Santosky, supra, 455 U.S. 745, noting there the high court “clearly established the constitutional protection[] of familial bonds and the right to due process when those bonds are threatened by the government

Eric M. v. Cajon Valley Union School District

174 Cal. App. 4th 285 · California Court of Appeal · May 20, 2009

The court took note that there was no case law clearly defining where the duty to transport begins and ends, and concluded that such a “duty to transport arises when the student is transported from one location to another … We also review de novo the trial court’s determination that [the district] established its affirmative defense of immunity pursuant to section 44808 as a matter of law.

Cruey v. Gannett Co.

64 Cal. App. 4th 356 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1998

Cruey asserts that both statements qualify as authorized admissions under Evidence Code section 1230. … McCarthy (9th Cir.1993) 998 F.2d. 638, 639 [California state prison officials permitted to raise affirmative defense of qualified immunity in summary judgment motion].) [13] Given the long-standing California court policy

Cavitt v. City of Los Angeles

251 Cal. App. 2d 623 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 6, 1967

Olive, and not Teresa, was the widow and so qualified for the benefits. … The court in Benson was concerned only with the establishment of widow status for one of two contesting claimants to pension benefits.

People v. Mott

140 Cal. App. 3d 394 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1983

If a person accused of a crime could shield himself behind the defense that he was ignorant of the law which he violated, immunity from punishment would in most cases result.’ (People v. … is a ‘buy-back’ arrangement or that the initial payment is in some manner protected from loss or ‘secured,’ the entire and precise nature of the ‘buy-back’, ‘protection’ or ‘security’ arrangement shall be completely and clearly

Alexander v. Scripps Memorial Hospital La Jolla

California Court of Appeal · May 11, 2018

Ritt were immune from liability under the Probate Code; and Plaintiffs could not establish negligent misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. … Immunities by their nature shield qualified parties from liability for legal violations.

Artiglio v. Superior Court

22 Cal. App. 4th 1388 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1994

Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.3d 1049 , established an exception to general products strict liability rules for prescription drugs. … Brown , however, very clearly distinguished among the three concepts of fault. Liability for defective design could not be premised on strict liability, but would require proof of negligence. (Brown v.

People v. Baniani

229 Cal. App. 4th 45 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 22, 2014

That section prohibits medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, dispensaries, or establishments from operating within 600 feet of a school (§ 11362.768, subd. … Without analysis, the court concluded “[n]either section 11362.775 nor section 11362.765 immunizes the marijuana sales activity conducted at Orangica.

Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal · Feb 27, 2026

In addition, a political subdivision’s “officers, agents, [and] employees,” when performing any functions or duties outside of their territory pursuant to CESA, enjoy all “privileges and immunities . . . … Among other things, the court concluded that section 8630 does not apply to charter cities because the Legislature did not clearly evince such an intent in the statute.

Novoa v. County of Ventura

133 Cal. App. 3d 137 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 28, 1982

Based on the above facts the complaint, in a confusing manner which does not very clearly identify the specific causes of action involved, asserts inter alia that the defendants violated various duties entitling plaintiffs … enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes