Case law

English v. Marin Municipal Water District

66 Cal. App. 3d 725 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 2, 1977

But in Rowland , the court made it clear that only the common law rules of immunity were under consideration. … It follows that the court did not and could not have abrogated or limited the application of section 846 or the immunities it extended to landowners.

Malear v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2023

In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we determine that defendants have not established an alternative basis for affirming the judgment at this early stage in the litigation. … Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 567–568), here, the cited portions of the exhibits were clearly delineated as (1) litigation statements made by defendants in a court filing, and (2) statements by prison officials

569 East County etc. v. Backcountry etc.

California Court of Appeal · Jun 16, 2016

capacities as an private citizen or as an officer of BAD), because the demurrer raised such issues as the statute of limitations under Government Code section 65009, subdivisions (c) and (d), the official and legislative immunities … It is well established that "[t]he amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar 'lodestar' method. [Citation.]

Jewish Community Centers Development Corp. v. County of Los Angeles

243 Cal. App. 4th 700 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 5, 2016

We conclude that the SBE’s interpretation of section 214 was clearly erroneous. … In the County’s reply brief, it adverts to a regulation establishing that a property cannot be exempt unless it is irrevocably dedicated to one or more qualifying purposes, and also establishing that a county assessor may

People v. Superior Court (Tunch)

80 Cal. App. 3d 665 · California Court of Appeal · May 8, 1978

The doctrine was developed to prevent unjustly granting criminals immunity from prosecution.” … Professor McCormick points out that this “immunity” result “can be required by the misconduct of a single officer, thus giving each officer involved in an investigation the power to confer immunity upon the subject by acting

Dual Diagnosis Treatment Center, Inc. v. Buschel

6 Cal. App. 5th 1098 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 2016

It further contended that even if the statements were deemed to be of public interest, no immunities apply and Sovereign established the requisite probability of prevailing on its claims. … First, the defendant must establish that the challenged claim arises from activity protected by section 425.16. [Citation.]

Farnam v. State of California

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 642 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2000

Application of Neighbarger to the Facts of this Case This brings us back to the basic tests of Neighbarger : "[T]he doctrine of assumption of risk properly bars a plaintiffs claim only when it can be established that, because … It seems clear to me and seems clearly applicable to our case.

People v. Radley

68 Cal. App. 2d 607 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 1945

It is the established rule that the court may properly receive evidence of such conversations, not for the purpose of establishing the truth of what was said over the telephone, but for the purpose of establishing that the … If this fundamental principle is clearly realized, its application is a comparatively simple matter.

People v. Francis

200 Cal. App. 3d 579 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 19, 1988

Again, even if defendant would so contend, the record clearly would defeat such a claim. … The requirements of this exception were clearly met in the instant case.

Limon v. County of Los Angeles CA2/8

California Court of Appeal · Sep 22, 2025

Moreover, Loggins, an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, does not purport to establish a bright-line rule fixing any particular length of time as too long to qualify as close temporal proximity under FEHA. … Similarly, decisions by a public employee supervisor regarding “job assignments, training and promotion” were found to be operational level acts that did not qualify as the type of policy level decisions immune under the

Kearns v. Superior Court

204 Cal. App. 3d 1325 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 3, 1988

The test for determination of the existence of an emergency is objective: whether the undisputed facts establish the existence of an exigency of “so pressing a character that some kind of action must be táken.” … The immunity offered by sections 2395 and 2396 applies regardless of where the emergency occurs (id. at p. 289), including the surgical department of a hospital.

English v. County of Alameda

70 Cal. App. 3d 226 · California Court of Appeal · May 31, 1977

further underlined by the circumstance that pursuant to the cited constitutional provisions the Legislature was empowered to exempt all or any portion of property used exclusively for charitable purposes and owned by the qualifying … In Ross , the property used for school purposes was leased to the school by a private owner, and the primary issue was whether the owner was immune from *244 property taxation.

People v. Smart

52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 456 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2006

Testifying at trial under a grant of immunity, Gibson stated that everything he had told the police before trial was untrue. The police interviewed both Smart and Calhoun after their arrests. … We do not think it is too much to ask that a prosecutor clearly specify in his or her accusatory pleading a defendant’s potential for punishment under the section 12022.53(d) enhancement, which tallies 25 years to life per

SUTCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. Modesto High School Dist.

208 Cal. App. 3d 1220 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 22, 1989

Construing the word “applicable” as we have here does not require a qualifying date. … The 1986 revisions in the school facilities law clearly establish the state’s interest in the financing of school facilities with development fees.

Flores v. Evergreen at San Diego, LLC

55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 823 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 13, 2007

Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 413, 415-419 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 491 ].) 3 The record does not clearly establish the level of her dementia. 4 Some decisions contain broad dicta stating spouses can bind each other to arbitration … As we discussed earlier, there is no evidence that Luis qualified as an agent under well-established agency principles, nor had he acquired legal representative status through such avenues as guardianship or conservatorship

Singer Co. v. County of Kings

46 Cal. App. 3d 852 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 7, 1975

Based on this evidence, the trial court found that “the imported merchandise is clearly segregated in separate stacks from the other contents of the warehouse” and there “is no commingling of *859 imported and domestically … The court noted that the wholesaler (VW) did *861 not qualify as an importer because it did not control the manufacture of the autos or the specifications for their manufacture, or even the number of autos allocated to them

Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. 1105 Alta Loma Road Apartments, LLC

65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 469 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 5, 2007

Alta Loma’s counsel wrote counsel for the Housing Rights Center to explain Mangine’s doctor’s notes in combination still did not include the required elements to establish Mangine had a qualifying disability. … contention confuses State Farm’s allegedly wrongful acts with the evidence that plaintiff will need to prove such misconduct.”). 23 For the same reason, the complaint’s alleged acts of disability discrimination are not immune

Hudson v. Von Hamm

85 Cal. App. 323 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 3, 1927

Article IV, section 2, of the United States constitution provides that: “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” … Justice Miller said: “The sole purpose (of this constitutional provision) was to declare to the several states that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, of as you limit or qualify or

People v. Brown

245 Cal. App. 4th 140 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 25, 2016

Clearly, the jury focused on it. … In section 1983 cases, for example, the contested issues may include an officer’s good faith as part of a qualified immunity defense, 15 agency liability based on alleged excessive use of force pursuant to official policy

People v. Preciado

31 Cal. App. 519 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 26, 1916

How can a fact be said to be clearly established so long as there is a reasonable doubt whether it has been established at all ? … Whatever may be found in decisions, the rule is firmly established that the defense of insanity may be established by a preponderance of the evidence merely, and that being the rule, trial courts are not allowed to qualify