Case law

People Ex Rel. Lungren v. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

56 Cal. App. 4th 868 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 23, 1997

“At the threshold, tribal immunity does not extend to barring suit against a third, non-immune party solely because the effect of a judgment against the third party will be felt by the tribe.” … If it is established that the law of California does not permit a court to hear a challenge to the actions of the Agency in the present case because of an inability to join the Tribe in the suit, the effect will be to immunize

People v. Chandler

17 Cal. App. 3d 798 · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 1971

Thus in seeking to establish error sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment, defendant has a difficult task indeed. (Cal. Const., art VI, § 13.) … He was granted immunity under section 1324 of the Penal Code and when he still refused to testify he was held in contempt of court.

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].)

Boyer v. County of Contra Costa

235 Cal. App. 2d 111 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 1965

the legislative intent to do so is clearly apparent.” … That is the situation here and the legislative intent is clearly apparent.

Acton v. Henderson

150 Cal. App. 2d 1 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 9, 1957

The provision making the retirement of “members” compulsory at age 70 is clearly qualified by the discretion vested in the board. … That is the most that the arguments of intervener and *17 amici curiae establish. But section 165.2 does not stand alone.

Standard Oil Co. v. Johnson

33 Cal. App. 2d 430 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 19, 1939

The facts as established by the allegations of the amended complaints as affect the Southern Pacific Company are, in brief, that the Standard Oil Company is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, and is qualified … The Southern Pacific Company likewise is a corporation, qualified to do business in the State of California, and is organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky.

People v. Superior Court (Memorial Med. Center)

234 Cal. App. 3d 363 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 24, 1991

The People declare that the documents are necessary to establish that Dr. Borden acted with criminal negligence or implied malice. At this time criminal charges have not been filed against Dr. Borden. … Hence, clearly section 1157’s reference to a “peer review body” must include hospital staff committees.

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.

Scharlin v. Superior Court

9 Cal. App. 4th 162 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 31, 1992

In January 1990, Frances executed a document entitled “First Amendment of Revocable Trust Agreement Established by Max Scharlin and Frances Scharlin.” … Proceedings covered by section 17207 include petitions determining the “construction of a trust instrument,” and ‘the existence or nonexistence of any immunity, power, privilege, duty, or right.” (§ 17200, subd.

Gordon v. Havasu Palms, Inc.

93 Cal. App. 4th 244 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 24, 2001

Immunity Havasu argues it is immune from liability under Civil Code section 846. As stated above, the court did not rule on this argument. … The marking shall be a color that provides contrast with the ground and it shall be kept in a clearly distinguishable condition.”

Quinn v. City of Los Angeles

100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 914 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 30, 2000

On this appeal, the real bone of contention is whether or not plaintiff was required as part of his prima facie case to establish that he was qualified to be hired as a police officer. … It ruled: “Now, the only evidence I have is a severe hearing loss, but that doesn’t establish whether or not, contrary to what counsel read, whether or not he is qualified and able to accept a job. . . .

Warford v. Medeiros

160 Cal. App. 3d 1035 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 15, 1984

It is for the court to say whether his silence is justified, [Citation], and to require him to answer if ‘it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.’ [Citation.] … (See Buck, Self-Incrimination in Civil Litigation: The Evolution of California’s Judicially Created Immunities from Murphy v.

People v. McReynolds

31 Cal. App. 2d 219 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 24, 1939

The value of land appropriated by eminent domain is essentially a question of opinion to be established by expert testimony. … His qualifications must first be established. ( 18 Am. Jur. 999 , secs. 355, 356.)

Tri-County Special Education Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne

19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 884 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 26, 2004

In addition, the court concluded, as to the individual respondents, that all of their actions “were within the sphere of legislative activity for which they are absolutely immune.” … In establishing an exclusive remedy by which local governments may claim funding for mandated programs (see Gov.

Industrial Indemnity Co. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

165 Cal. App. 3d 633 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 1985

weight; and courts will not depart from such construction unless it is clearly erroneous or unauthorized. … Renfro was a qualified injured worker.

People v. Friday

California Court of Appeal · Mar 27, 2014

“[I]t is well established that incriminating answers may be officially compelled, without violating the privilege, when the person to be examined receives immunity ‘coextensive with the scope of the privilege’—i.e., immunity … Under the Lent factors, allowing such questions would clearly violate overbreadth principles.

City of Emeryville v. Superior Court

2 Cal. App. 4th 21 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 26, 1991

Emeryville moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication of causes of action, claiming immunity because it had adopted a vehicle pursuit policy under the standards set by Vehicle Code section 17004.7. … This amendment stated clearly that a defendant could seek to show “a good and substantial defense to the plaintiff’s action (or to a portion thereof).” (Id., pp. 1671-1672.)

Burke v. Superior Court

129 Cal. App. 3d 570 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 8, 1982

Rush, supra, 45 Cal.2d 345 , the very case establishing nonliability in most instances, pointed out the common law immunity applied to sales to an “ordinary” or “able bodied” man, and exceptions had always existed based on … This is a case where such specific immunity has not been provided, hence does not exist.

People v. Schmidt

California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2019

If Generes did not own the interest she purported to convey, the instrument she filed was clearly false. … To establish such a violation, the defendant must show that the prosecutor’s refusal was deliberately designed 8 Indeed, defendant tried to have himself qualified as an expert witness on the subject.

Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc. v. Moore

67 Cal. App. 3d 278 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1977

Ordinarily, where a professional person is accused of negligence in failing to adhere to accepted standards within his profession the accepted standards must be established only by qualified expert testimony (Lawless v. … It is clearly contemplated that architects may make erroneous decisions, and a means of rectifying them is provided.