Case law

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.)

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.

Y.C. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · Nov 8, 2021

Nor can there be any genuine question about whether the interview qualifies as an “interrogation” for Fifth Amendment purposes. … (Lead opn., ante, 8 This is why courts distinguish use immunity from derivative use immunity. See, e.g., People v.

University of Southern California v. Superior Court

45 Cal. App. 4th 1283 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1996

result, but would render sterile the immunity provisions of the statute.” ( Schulz, supra, 66 Cal.App.3d 440, 445 .) … However, section 1157 clearly does not create a “privilege” as that term is used in division 8 of the Evidence Code.

Jenkins v. County of Riverside

41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 23, 2006

As to the accommodation portion of her FEHA claim, for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, she must prove that she is qualified for the position as to which an accommodation is sought. (Hastings v. … If a “regular” employee, the record before the trial court clearly established triable issues as to whether she could be accommodated by “reassignment to a vacant position.” (See Gov. Code, § 12926, subd.

Unite Here Local 30 v. Department of Parks & Recreation

194 Cal. App. 4th 1200 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 29, 2011

is in any way less qualified than Delaware North to operate the Old Town concession. … Thus, even if, hypothetically, an assignment to a less qualified concessionaire would effect a material change in the contract, plaintiffs failed to establish that to be the case here.

Noel v. River Hills Wilsons, Inc.

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 5, 2003

Insofar as the common-interest privilege is concerned, malice is not inferred from the communication itself. (§ 48.) “ ‘The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is “actual malice” which is established by a showing … (Cooper, Job Reference Immunity Statutes: Prevalent But Irrelevant (2001) 11 Cornell J.L. & Pub.

Fuller v. State of California

51 Cal. App. 3d 926 · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1975

The court, in holding that improvement of a park area does not remove the immunity from the unimproved area, indicated that the immunity granted by the section is to be given a broad application as it pointed out that the … Clearly plaintiff knew the danger of diving should the wave be receding. Alldrin didn’t want them to dive but they told him it was okay, they had already dived.

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.

Lezama v. Justice Court

190 Cal. App. 3d 15 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 1987

The United States Supreme Court explored the parameters of judicial immunity. … The record before us clearly demonstrates Lezama has failed to meet the criteria for an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5 in the mandate proceeding.

Erfurt v. State of California

141 Cal. App. 3d 837 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 12, 1983

The fact the jury found plaintiff contributorily negligent in no way establishes that her negligence was the sole cause of the accident. … Weather Immunity Finally, the state asserts a complete defense in the immunity granted it by Government Code section 831 7 for injuries caused by the effect of weather conditions.

Tulare Pediatric Health etc. v. State Dept. of Health Care etc.

California Court of Appeal · Oct 16, 2019

Health centers like Tulare Clinic qualify for grants by providing primary health services — immunizations, prenatal care, and the like — to medically underserved communities. (42 U.S.C. § 254b.) … The Welfare and Institutions Code allows the State to establish a payment rate for new health centers “that is equal to 100 percent of the projected allowable costs to the [federally qualified health center] of furnishing

Roscoe v. Goodale

105 Cal. App. 2d 271 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 2, 1951

and acting city engineer and also a qualified and registered civil engineer; that one Woodcock is the duly elected, qualified and acting superintendent of public works of the city but is not a civil engineer nor registered … The trial court in denying the petition held that “the Charter provisions construed together, coupled with the allegations of the petition, fail to show a refusal to perform any clearly established duty owing to petitioner

Pavicich v. Santucci

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 125 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 8, 2000

The insured’s conspiracy cause of action against the insurer and the attorneys who had arranged the settlement was upheld since the settlement clearly violated the attorney’s fiduciary duty to the insured plaintiff.” … This is because of the principle that “where one does speak he must speak the whole truth to the end that he does not conceal any facts which materially qualify those stated. [Citation.]

Silva v. Superior Court

52 Cal. App. 3d 269 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 17, 1975

“Article 43 “Immunity from jurisdiction “I. … Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.

In Re Kiana A.

113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 669 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 19, 2001

Kevin W. and Mario A, both qualify as Kiana A. `s presumptive father. … The evidence clearly supports the juvenile court's conclusion that Kevin W.'s presumption was entitled to greater weight than Mario A.'s. 3.

Stubblefield Construction Co. v. City of San Bernardino

32 Cal. App. 4th 687 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 27, 1995

immunity from suit under section 1983. *705 ( 445 U.S. at p. 638 [63 L.Ed.2d at pp. 685-686].) … The regulation of foothill property, including the apartment projects proposed here, is clearly a legitimate public purpose.

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Arthofer

245 Cal. App. 2d 454 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 7, 1966

He further established that the principal zoning of properties on the south side of Trask Avenue easterly of Harbor Boulevard was R-l, and that any zone changes since the year 1956 were based on knowledge of the contemplated … A witness who is fully qualified to express an opinion on fair market value is not necessarily qualified as an expert to express an opinion on reasonable probability of a change of zone. (Redondo Beach School Dist. v.

Niedle v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 15, 2001

Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 445 [ 93 S.Ct. 2230, 2232-2233 , 37 L.Ed.2d 63 ] (1973), but our cases have not identified any acceptable reason for qualifying the protection afforded by the Clause for ‘the “citizen of State A who ventures … into State B” to settle there and establish a home.’

Charles Lomori & Son v. Globe Laboratories

35 Cal. App. 2d 248 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 23, 1939

“The use of serum alone will confer an immediate but temporary immunity which cannot be depended upon to protect the animal for more than 20 to 25 days.” … Clearly such minimum doses prescribed and such sanitary conditions and method of vaccination are an inseparable part of the warranty.