Case law

County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

102 Cal. App. 4th 627 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 30, 2002

As of May 5, 1999, his four siblings were placed together in a different foster *635 family home; the siblings’ foster parent was working towards qualifying to take Terrell as a fifth child. … Immunity of County “In California, all government tort liability must be based on statute.

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

Cruey v. GANNETT COMPANY

76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 670 · 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

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

Gillett-Harris-Duranceau & Associates, Inc. v. Kemple

83 Cal. App. 3d 214 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 27, 1978

Where the words of a statute are clear, the courts cannot add to them or alter them or insert qualifying *220 provisions to conform to an assumed intent or accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute … Defendants have not established, nor have we been able to discern, any conflict between the provisions of section 930 and those of our state Constitution which deal with grand juries.

Application of Bunkers

1 Cal. App. 61 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1905

In reenacting section 86 the legislature very properly, in addition to imposing imprisonment on its own initiative, as the eon *66 stitution clearly implies it may do, included the constitutional punishment, in order, probably … But where there are manifest defects in the general laws authorizing the establishment of such corporations it is not only proper, but absolutely the duty of the legislative department to gather information upon the subject

County of Los Angeles v. State Department of Public Health

158 Cal. App. 2d 425 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 17, 1958

“The specific language of Section 3300 provides that the ‘ward, sanitarium or hospital’ must conform to the rules in order to qualify for subsidy, clearly contemplating that it is the facilities of these installations which … must conform to the rules in order that the institution qualify for subsidy, and does not refer to fiscal matters between the counties and the *437 State.”

People v. Tompkins

109 Cal. App. 2d 215 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 13, 1952

At the trial, the officer, after being qualified as an expert on betting methods and paraphernalia utilized by bookmakers in Los Angeles County, identified the other piece of paper found in defendant’s hand as a betting marker … To hold that section 19595 of the Business and Professions Code immunized the practices of appellant herein would be to ascribe to the Legislature an intent to eliminate most of the protective regulations designed to prohibit

TRW Space & Defense Sector v. County of Los Angeles

41 Cont. Cas. Fed. 77,013 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1996

If it is the latter, the property is immune from taxation. … The language clearly applies to progress payments under fixed price contracts.

Olson v. Gilley CA3

California Court of Appeal · Nov 6, 2013

Under the qualified immunity defense, government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability under section 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … The less the right is clearly established, the more likely the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. (See Wilson v.

Peckham v. California Newspaper Publishers Ass'n

108 Cal. App. 2d 53 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 6, 1951

This is a statutory proceeding instituted by the petitioner and respondent to have the “Sonora Daily” established as a newspaper of general circulation under the provisions of sections 6000-6005 of the Government Code-. … If the word “printed” as used and defined by the Legislature, does not, standing alone, clearly and. unequivocally express the limited meaning ascribed to it by • appellant, then we must consider the several code sections

Cantor v. Anderson

126 Cal. App. 3d 124 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 25, 1981

Subdivisions (b) and (c) were added to section 1714 of the Civil Code 2 to qualify the general principle (expressed in subd. (a)) that everyone is responsible for his own negligent or willful acts. … Moreover, where an injury is the proximate result of concurrent conditions, one of which is statutorily immunized from liability, the one that is not immunized may form the basis of liability. (See Cameron v.

Ginochio v. Ginochio

43 Cal. App. 3d 412 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 1974

He denied paternity in the action which was brought by Marietta to establish the parent-child relationship. … Article I, sections 11 and 21 of the California Constitution guarantee that all laws of general nature shall have a uniform operation, and that no citizen or class of citizens shall be granted privileges or immunities which

Atchley v. City of Fresno

151 Cal. App. 3d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 17, 1984

This argument is clearly without merit. … clearly erroneous.

Estate of Tutules

204 Cal. App. 2d 481 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 8, 1962

Schmidlapp we repeat that there is no constitutional rule of immunity from taxation of intangibles by more than one State." (P. 181.) … establish that it was the intention of the parties to convert the real property interest of the grantors into personal property."

Citizens for Odor Nuisance Abatement v. City of San Diego

8 Cal. App. 5th 350 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 9, 2017

In June 2014, the City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it was immune under Government Code section 831.2. … To qualify as a public nuisance, the interference must be both substantial and objectively unreasonable. (Id. at p. 1105.)

People v. Knox

95 Cal. App. 3d 420 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1979

Bethony’s credibility was clearly an important issue in the case. … Formerly, California law on this point clearly supported appellant’s position. In People v.

People v. Winters

93 Cal. App. 4th 273 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2001

The issue presented raises a question of statutory interpretation, the rules for which are well established. … In this case, the prosecutor was unable to establish that Winters’s prior conviction involved an assault that qualified as a “serious felony” and the trial court correctly found that the prior conviction was not a strike.

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.

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.