Case law

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles

11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 692 · California Supreme Court · Apr 5, 2004

A rule of qualified immunity shields a public officer from an action for damages under section 1983 unless the officer has violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. (Saucier, supra, 533 U.S. at p. 201.) … The high court explained that “[i]f the law did not put the officer on notice that his- conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” (Ibid.)

Eastburn v. Regional Fire Protection Authority

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 552 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2003

In our view, Zepeda correctly held that the section indeed applies, and provides a qualified or limited immunity to such persons. … shielded by the qualified immunity of Health and Safety Code section 1799.107.

Martinez v. Regents of University of California

50 Cal. 4th 1277 · California Supreme Court · Nov 15, 2010

Or, as plaintiffs put it, if section 68130.5 requires an illegal alien to attend a California high school for three years in order to qualify for the exemption from nonresident tuition, then the state has effectively established … Second, the Court of Appeal also concluded section 68130.5 did not provide that qualifying unlawful aliens are eligible for nonresident tuition clearly enough to satisfy the “affirmatively provides” requirement.

Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist.

249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 548 · California Supreme Court · Jul 15, 2019

The Court of Appeal criticized McMahan’s for failing to distinguish between those sections of the GCA that provide “qualified” immunity and those that provide “absolute” immunity. … City of San Bernardino (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 739, on which McMahan’s had relied, as one example of a qualified immunity in action.

People v. Mentch

45 Cal. 4th 274 · California Supreme Court · Nov 24, 2008

(Nov. 5, 1996)) provides partial immunity for the possession and cultivation of marijuana to two groups of people; qualified medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers. … What is not permitted is for an individual to establish an after-the-fact caregiving relationship in an effort to thereby immunize from prosecution previous cultivation or possession for sale. (Cf. People v.

City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc.

56 Cal. 4th 729 · California Supreme Court · May 6, 2013

Hence, we determined, section 11362.765, subdivision (b)(3), which grants immunity from certain state marijuana laws to one who “provides assistance to a qualified patient or . . . primary caregiver, in administering medical … Finally, the Court of Appeal found no merit in the defendants’ contention that because section 11362.775 affords qualified collective cultivation projects a limited immunity from nuisance prosecution under the state’s “drug

New York Times Co. v. Superior Court

51 Cal. 3d 453 · California Supreme Court · Sep 27, 1990

The shield law provides an absolute rather than a qualified immunity. … In light of Delaney , the unpublished photographs at issue in this case are clearly within the scope of the shield law.

People v. Mower

122 Cal. Rptr. 2d 326 · California Supreme Court · Jul 18, 2002

It is well established that immunity from arrest is exceptional, and, when granted, ordinarily is granted expressly. (See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. … Penal Code section 1096 requires the People to prove the facts establishing a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital

3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 · California Supreme Court · Aug 18, 2003

However, I disagree with the majority's conclusion that section 43.8 provides only qualified immunity. … This is demonstrated by the fact that Business and Professions Code section 2318, which clearly creates absolute immunity, concludes with the same sentence.

Asgari v. City of Los Angeles

15 Cal. 4th 744 · California Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1997

Police officers are granted a qualified immunity shielding them from liability for damages caused by their official acts “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … Under federal law, therefore, a police officer is liable for all damages proximately caused by his or her official acts that a reasonable person would have known to violate clearly established rights, including such acts

Baldwin v. State of California

6 Cal. 3d 424 · California Supreme Court · Jan 3, 1972

Johnston (1967) 67 Cal.2d 163 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 430 P.2d 43 ], we previously considered this problem and held that the design immunity remained intact even though changed circumstances had clearly revealed the defects … State of California (1968) 69 Cal.2d 782, 798 [ 73 Cal.Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 ]), and that “[u]nless the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages

Barner v. Leeds

102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 97 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2000

Once the decision is made to provide legal services, a deputy public defender’s actions implementing that decision do not qualify for the immunity afforded by section 820.2. … the Legislature has clearly provided for immunity, the important societal goal of compensating injured parties for damages caused by willful or negligent acts must prevail.”

Van Horn v. Watson

45 Cal. 4th 322 · California Supreme Court · Dec 18, 2008

As we recently noted, "`[w]e do not presume that the Legislature intends, when it enacts a statute, to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is clearly expressed or necessarily implied.'" ( Brodie … —that most clearly require special training and expertise such persons are unlikely to possess.

Hagberg v. California Federal Bank FSB

7 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 · California Supreme Court · Jan 5, 2004

Cal Fed contends that it would have been an idle act for the Legislature to establish a qualified immunity for permissive reporters, as it did in Penal Code section 11172, subdivision (a), if Hagberg were correct that section … 47 itself establishes at most a qualified immunity for citizen *371 reports of criminal activity.

People v. Jordan

172 Cal. 391 · California Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1916

By reason of the different treatment, there is a rational and intrinsic distinction which clearly justifies the classification. … The court in its opinion said: ‘ If prayer can be regarded as practicing medicine and as an immunity, the act allows every person—man, woman or child—such immunity, and the right to pray for the sick and afflicted, and that

In re Dick

64 Cal. 2d 272 · California Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1966

Proc., § 1858), some relief from the previously established law in the case of the felon also is indicated. … Likewise, when the felon continues to issue fraudulent checks he cannot do so with complete immunity.

Caldwell v. Montoya

10 Cal. 4th 972 · California Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1995

As the dissent noted, section 820.9, unlike section 820.2, does not qualify its immunity with the phrase “except as otherwise provided by statute.” … It establishes the basic rules that public entities are immune from liability except as provided by statute (§ 815, subd.

Miller v. Superior Court

89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 · California Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1999

The shield law is, by its own terms, absolute rather than qualified in immunizing a newsperson from contempt for revealing unpublished information obtained in the newsgathering process. … If the shield law itself provided for a balancing approach, i.e., a qualified immunity, there would have been no need for us to turn to the federal Constitution ....

Estate of Johnson

139 Cal. 532 · California Supreme Court · Jul 10, 1903

Its sole purpose was to declare to the several states that whatever rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more … It was the legislative design, clearly expressed, that their property should not be subjected to the burden of the tax, and yet by that decision upon their property is imposed a burden which the legislature not only meant

Hubbard v. Brown

50 Cal. 3d 189 · California Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1990

Contrary to the position of the Court of Appeal, we believe the legislative history of section 846 clearly demonstrates that a federal grazing *194 permit is an interest in real property sufficient to qualify its holder for … As previously discussed, the Legislature clearly intended, when amending section 846, to immunize private owners of easements and of revocable licenses from tort liability to recreational users.