Case law

Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 357 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 12, 2007

The governing federal cases clearly reflect the distinction between immunity required for a state to lawfully compel answers, and the right to exclude answers that are unlawfully compelled. ( Turley, supra, at p. 78 , 94 … jurisdiction were established.

Sci-Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty.

54 Cal. App. 4th 654 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 24, 1997

Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785 ( 268 Cal.Rptr. 753 , 789 P.2d 934 )]. [¶]0 If the court should determine that... the District Attorney has established a right to production of the portions of the videotape that have … Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 459 [finding qualified privilege under First Amendment].)

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."

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.

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.

In Re Estate of Graham

63 Cal. App. 41 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1923

Second, that it establishes a perpetuity for purposes other than charitable, and therefore violates the statute against perpetuities. … Again, in section 1021 of Pomeroy on Equity Jurisprudence, paragraph 1, the author says: “The support and propagation of religion is clearly a ‘charitable use.’

Brinsmead v. Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist.

California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 2023

“A general demurrer will lie where the complaint ‘has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.’ ” (Casterson v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 177, 183.) … And the Rowland factors do not provide a “freestanding means of establishing duty.” (Brown v.

Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified School District

60 Cal. App. 3d 814 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 6, 1976

Corning Hospital Dist. (1961) 55 Cal.2d 211 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 359 P.2d 457 ]; that Muskopf further established that governmental liability for negligence is the rule, and immunity the exception; that, as to the conduct … Plaintiff’s immunity points thus mean that he may state a cause of action for negligence.

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.

Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista

California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 2021

“Reporting the news [qualifies] as an exercise of free speech. [Citation.] … (a).) 10 basis for Collondrez’s assumption that the making of such determinations is immune from the chilling effect of potential litigation.

West Coast Theatres, Inc. v. City of Pomona

68 Cal. App. 763 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1924

The history of the litigation commences with the adoption of an ordinance through an initiative election by the qualified voters of the city of Pomona, the text of which, so far as is here applicable, being as follows: “Section … IV); and that certain citizens or classes of citizens are granted privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, are not granted to all citizens (sec. 21, art. I).

Sokolow v. County of San Mateo

213 Cal. App. 3d 231 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 17, 1989

Sokolow and other qualified women as members. … Clearly, [appellants] did not achieve their primary goal, the admission of Ms. Sokolow and other qualified women.

Van Horn v. Watson

56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 272 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2007

Clearly, Health and Safety Code former section 1767 was explicit in limiting its terms to emergency medical care. … Section 1799.102, on its face, clearly applies to "any person" providing "emergency care" at the "scene of an emergency."

City of Redwood City v. Moore

231 Cal. App. 2d 563 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1965

section is specific in this respect by its proviso that “except as prohibited by the state constitution or restricted by this charter, the city shall and may exercise all municipal powers, functions, rights, privileges and immunities … dispose of such property as its interests may require; and, except as prohibited by the state constitution or restricted by this charter, the city shall and may exercise all municipal powers, functions, rights, privileges and immunities

Valdez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 18, 2022

Originally, section 1799.102 provided a single, generalized immunity for all persons volunteering aid at the scene of an emergency.5 In 2008, the California Supreme Court interpreted this immunity statute as applying solely … Valdez reasons the fistfight does not qualify as an “emergency” because there was no evidence either he or Lizarraga had “ ‘a need for immediate medical attention’ ” when Terrones intervened.

Lerma v. County of Orange

15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 609 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 13, 2004

Here, the dire medical condition of the attorney was plain, and good cause for a continuance was clearly shown. It was an abuse of discretion to deny the continuance. … A continuance was clearly necessary. B.

People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal · Mar 21, 2014

Chavez was a civil action involving qualified immunity in which the issue was whether a police officer who allegedly compelled statements from the plaintiff could be held liable for violating the plaintiff’s civil rights. … The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the parole officer, concluding that the “ ‘right to be free from coercive interrogation’ ” was clearly established under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

Brittell v. Young

90 Cal. App. 3d 400 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1979

It held that the fact that the injury arose out *404 of and in the course of employment did not per se establish that the injury was caused by an employee acting within the scope of his employment. … Exceptions to the plain wording of the statute should clearly be indicated in either the pleadings or declarations.

People v. Jenkins

44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 788 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 20, 2006

Accordingly, the statute clearly encompasses the scenario posed by appellant: the use of force or fear against a bystander or good Samaritan during flight after commission of a theft against another person. … Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Apprendi applied to the prior conviction allegations against appellant, he would be entitled to retrial by a jury, not immunity from retrial. Moreover, neither People v.

Golden West Baseball Co. v. Talley

232 Cal. App. 3d 1294 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 30, 1991

In the present appeal, however, Talley’s conduct was clearly in harmony with the interests of the City. … Even if the “tort of another” doctrine were applicable, Talley was protected by governmental immunity.