Case law

Gonzales v. City of Atwater

California Court of Appeal · Jan 11, 2017

The trial court granted the motion, as the county established all three elements of design immunity—discretionary approval was established through evidence that the engineer who approved the plans had the discretion and authority … Conclusion Since all of the elements of design immunity are established, the City is immune from liability for any dangerous condition of the intersection.18 Based on the City’s 18While evidence was produced

People v. Collins

228 Cal. App. 2d 460 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 15, 1964

Perez, 58 Cal.2d 229 [ 23 Cal.Rptr. 569 , 373 P.2d 617 ], is misplaced since the factual picture is clearly distinguishable. … The prosecutor here established his good faith in the first instance by eliciting from Yelenovsky an admission of his talks with defendant.

JEFFREY H. v. Imai, Tadlock & Keeney

101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 916 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 3, 2001

The Moore decision established authoritatively that the litigation privilege applies to statements made in a private, contractual arbitration proceeding. … These precedents clearly also apply to theories of negligent infliction of emotional distress and operate to bar the claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress in the present case.

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.]

Schettler v. County of Santa Clara

74 Cal. App. 3d 990 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 9, 1977

In most jurisdictions, however, courts have established exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity to protect those who acted in reliance on the overruled decision. (2) Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States has … The foregoing reasons compel the conclusion that prior to the decision in Michelin , statutory and case law was clearly defined and understood both on federal and state levels.

Morfin v. State of California

12 Cal. App. 4th 812 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 22, 1993

a design immunity defense. … the design immunity affirmative defense.

People v. Wing

31 Cal. App. 785 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 3, 1916

. *788 It is contended on the part of appellant that the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti, and that therefore the admission of the confession of appellant was error. … He was then asked as to whether any threats had been made, or any offers of reward or immunity, and he answered in the negative. The evidence clearly supports the verdict of the jury.

Horney v. Guy F. Atkinson Co.

140 Cal. App. 3d 923 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 16, 1983

Knudsen Corporation, which also was a general partner in Todds Food Company, claimed immunity from suit by reason of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Labor Code. … In the instant case the declarations and agreement of joint venture establish, without conflict, that this case falls within the rules enunciated in Reed and Sonberg .

Bozaich v. State of California

32 Cal. App. 3d 688 · California Court of Appeal · May 30, 1973

We have concluded that appellants’ lawsuit does not qualify as a class action and that the trial court’s order should be affirmed for this if for no other reason. … For example, it is not now essential to the establishment of a class action that a common fund exist; “[n]or is a common recovery required in order to establish a community of interest.” (Daar v.

People v. Urziceanu

33 Cal. Rptr. 3d 859 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 12, 2005

The court correctly concluded defendant’s evidence did not establish a mistake of fact, but established a mistake of law. The trial court was wrong in concluding this did not present a cognizable defense. … Here, because the trial court did not clearly articulate reasons for denying the motion, we reverse and remand for additional findings.

Loehr v. Ventura County Community College District

147 Cal. App. 3d 1071 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 13, 1983

Although Government Code section 814 provides an exemption from the immunity provisions of the act (see Gov. … The purposes served by the act clearly apply whether an underlying action sounds in tort or contract.

People v. Waxler

224 Cal. App. 4th 712 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 11, 2014

[Citations.] ‘ “The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. … [T]he [CUA] provides a limited immunity — not a shield from reasonable investigation.

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

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

Chambers v. Terry

40 Cal. App. 2d 153 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 17, 1940

Clearly, it refers to such inferior courts as may be established by the legislature, under the power given in the fourth paragraph of section 11, even in cities where what we have called the new municipal courts have been … established.

Caldwell v. Paramount Unified School District

41 Cal. App. 4th 189 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 20, 1995

Riverview Gardens School Dist. (8th Cir. 1994) 30 F.3d 940, 944 ] [plaintiff not required to establish “adequate performance” for prima facie case, but only show that he was qualified]. 6 ) Thus, the instruction correctly … The appellate court found that plaintiff had indeed established his prima facie case, since he had only to prove that he was qualified for the position, not that he was adequately performing the job. ( 30 F.3d at p. 944 .

Danielson v. County of Humboldt

California Court of Appeal · Jun 26, 2024

Code, § 821 [companion section extending the same immunity to public employees].) … This provision is clearly discretionary as it does not mandate seizing or impounding any dog.

People v. Cavala

35 Cal. App. 154 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 27, 1917

The situation then stands thus: That the district attorney called a witness to the stand and required him to give testimony as to some fact or circumstance which he conceived might tend to establish probable or reasonable … As is clearly true upon the record as we see it here, or upon the assumption justified by that record, the defendant was not introduced as a witness by the people at the Avila hearing upon the theory that he was the confederate

People v. Learnard

4 Cal. App. 5th 1117 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 28, 2016

The trial court determined the prior assault conviction qualified as a strike. … The court recognized that the reference in the abstract of judgment to both a deadly weapon and great bodily injury created some ambiguity, but noted that the information “set[] out clearly that a baseball bat was used in

Huynh v. Vu

4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 9, 2003

even if it was qualified. ( Aalgaard, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 685-686.) … First, in practical terms, adopting the mixed motive test would be tantamount to proclaiming absolute immunity.