Case law

Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim

187 Cal. App. 4th 734 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 18, 2010

immunity under [the CUA]. … Second, while it is true that legislation may not immunize a business from Unruh Civil Rights Act claims for discrimination that occurs in that establishment (see Gibson , at p. 1093, relying on Orloff v.

Sanchez v. Lane Bryant, Inc.

123 F. Supp. 3d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Aug 17, 2015

“The malice necessary to defeat a qualified privilege is ‘actual malice’ which is established by a showing that the publication was motivated by hatred or ill will towards the plaintiff or by a showing that the defendant … Further, courts in California are divided as to whether managerial immunity establishes a qualified or absolute privilege.

Little v. Gore

148 F. Supp. 3d 936 · District Court, S.D. California · Dec 8, 2015

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly-established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the Court turns to whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident. See Jensen v.

Adams v. Kraft

828 F. Supp. 2d 1090 · District Court, N.D. California · Oct 25, 2011

Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that they should be granted qualified immunity because *1115 they are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. Br. at 17. … the basis of qualified immunity.

People v. Clark

230 Cal. App. 4th 490 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 9, 2014

’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver prior to his or her arrest.” … It is well established that immunity from arrest is exceptional, and, when granted, ordinarily is granted expressly. (See generally 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.

Cornell v. City & Cnty. of S.F.

225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Nov 16, 2017

By then, appellants contend, the jury's findings establish without doubt that Cornell was in full flight, clearly indicating consciousness of guilt. … Cornell is correct that Venegas II held that the federal qualified immunity "does not apply to actions brought under ...

Cuviello v. City of San Francisco

940 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, N.D. California · Apr 15, 2013

(c) Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability when they have not violated a "clearly established" constitutional right. Camreta v. … There is no qualified immunity.

K. v. Sonoma County

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 27, 2024

See id. 21 County Social Workers, in their bare reliance on state law immunity, fail to establish that 22 they are entitled to qualified immunity under federal law. … Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Lafferty violated a clearly established liberty 9 right and Lafferty is not entitled to qualified immunity on the Section 1983 claims at this stage. 10 b.

McArthur v. City & County of San Francisco

190 F. Supp. 3d 895 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 6, 2016

The qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must consider: (1) whether the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the constitutional right was “clearly established

Palacios v. City of Oakland

970 F. Supp. 732 · District Court, N.D. California · May 13, 1997

The qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry: (1) was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? and (2) under that law, could a reasonable official have believed the conduct to be lawful? Act Up! … Therefore, where the law is clearly established, an officer found to have used unreasonable force will not be entitled to qualified immunity. See id. 7 .

People v. West Valley Caregivers, Inc.

242 Cal. App. Supp. 4th 24 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Dec 7, 2015

Following the definitions and the provision making it “unlawful to own, establish, operate, use, or permit the establishment or operation of a[n] [MMB]” is a section titled “Limited Immunity,” which states, “Notwithstanding … “The voters thus found all ongoing MMB’s, whether or not they qualified for limited immunity, had the potential for deleterious impact and secondary effects on the community.”

Parkes v. County of San Diego

345 F. Supp. 2d 1071 · District Court, S.D. California · Jun 23, 2004

*1088 relationship are barred as they are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Legal Standard Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Santos v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF CHILDREN

299 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 6, 2004

Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Thus, this Court finds plaintiff does not have a clearly established liberty interest, and defendant social workers are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's Section 1983 claims.

Gensburg v. Miller

31 Cal. App. 4th 512 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1994

Thus, the conduct was entitled to only qualified immunity. … egregious or intentional the conduct, qualified immunity shields only that conduct of a governmental official which he or she reasonably believed to be lawful in light of the clearly established law and facts of the case

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.”

San Joaquin Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. County of San Joaquin

898 F. Supp. 2d 1177 · District Court, E.D. California · Sep 24, 2012

The doctrine of qualified immunity “protects government officials from ‘liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Id. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citations omitted). 6 Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson v.

Dairy v. Bonham

25 F. Supp. 3d 1284 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 7, 2014

the Qualifying Period.” … Thus, the undisputed facts establish showing the statute at issue does not discriminate against nonresidents sufficiently to trigger scrutiny under the Privileges and Immunities Clause under Hillside Dairy and Chalker .

Bardzik v. County of Orange

605 F. Supp. 2d 1076 · District Court, C.D. California · Mar 11, 2009

“Government officials who perform discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity only ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … This finding was clearly established at the time of the alleged retaliation. Accordingly, this Court rejects the Orange County Defendants’ argument that Bardzik’s claims are barred by qualified immunity. IV.

Fontanilla v. City and County of San Francisco

987 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 14, 1997

The relevant inquiry for qualified immunity purposes “is whether a reasonable government official could have believed that his conduct was lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed.” … Clearly Established Law The first step in deciding whether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity is to determine whether the parties agree that the law governing due process was “clearly established.”

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.