Case law

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

Scott v. Garcia

370 F. Supp. 2d 1056 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 2005

The defense 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 … clearly established.

Williams v. County of Santa Barbara

272 F. Supp. 2d 995 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 14, 2003

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Put more simply, “[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.” Saucier, 633 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Maas v. Municipal Court for the Southern Judicial District of San Mateo County

175 Cal. App. 3d 601 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1985

He has not established any abuse of discretion. *606 IV The principal issue raised by appellant is whether witness Livingston waived her attorney-client privilege when she entered into the written immunity agreement. … While a written immunity agreement might include an unambiguous waiver of the attorney-client privilege ampng its terms, clearly the agreement at issue in this case did not.

Wiley v. Kern High School District

California Court of Appeal · Dec 23, 2024

Finally, government employees are subject to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … Finally, Wiley’s claim fails because Whiting (and any other officer still implicated) is entitled to qualified immunity.

Bolkiah v. Superior Court

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 540 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 8, 1999

The Record Evidence Is Insufficient to Establish the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act Is Applicable in This Case. … In this case the record evidence is insufficient to establish any of the petitioners qualified as a “foreign state” for purposes of service of process under the FSIA.

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.

Willis v. Mullins

809 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, E.D. California · Aug 16, 2011

Qualified immunity on this issue can not be determined at this time. 2. … For qualified immunity analysis, “the objective (albeit fact-specific) question [is] whether a reasonable officer could have believed [the police defendant’s] warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established

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

Armstrong v. Wilson

942 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 20, 1996

Torcasio, a qualified immunity case, held that it was not clearly established, at the time of the alleged discrimination, that either the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA applied to state prisons. Torcasio v. … Gomez, 1995 WL 779128 , *2 (N.D.Cal. 1995), a qualified immunity case, a judge of this Court found that there was no authority to "clearly establish” that the ADA applied to state prisons at the time of the alleged incident

Hagman v. Meher Mount Corp.

215 Cal. App. 4th 82 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 3, 2013

Code, § 214) means that no such taxes were “levied and assessed” on the property during the years it qualified for the exemption. … The court reasoned that the assessment was levied to “clearly benefit specific real property” and not to raise “general revenue.”

Crowe v. County of San Diego

303 F. Supp. 2d 1050 · District Court, S.D. California · Feb 17, 2004

“If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202 , 121 S.Ct. 2151 . … may be correct that this issue has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit law can “clearly establish” the law for qualified immunity purposes.

Bardin v. Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 1, 1999

We conclude that the statute must be read to provide a qualified immunity, but to allow a defendant to assert any other common law or statutory privilege available. … Why specifically establish an immunity for good faith fraud reporting yet retain existing immunity for bad faith reporting? HQ The answer is found in the nature of legislative compromise. . . .

O'KANE v. Catuira

212 Cal. App. 2d 131 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 21, 1963

Since sections 1800 and 1801 are clearly invalid for the reasons above noted, it is unnecessary to subject them to further analysis. … Nineteenth —Granting to any corporation, association, or individual any special or exclusive right, privilege, or immunity. . . .

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.

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 .

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

647 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, C.D. California · Jul 27, 2009

ORDER RE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED ANSWER, MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION RE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge. I. … The Court denies the motion for a determination that Corbett is entitled to qualified immunity as moot, without prejudice.

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.

Baber v. Napa State Hospital

209 Cal. App. 3d 213 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 31, 1989

Section 855, subdivision (a) is a specific application of the general policy established in section 815.6. (Cal. Government Tort Liability Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1980) Liabilities and Immunities, § 4.34, p. 377.) … Whether the hospital exercised reasonable diligence to comply is a matter of defense for respondent to establish, and clearly cannot be resolved by the instant motion for nonsuit.

Warkentine v. Soria

152 F. Supp. 3d 1269 · District Court, E.D. California · Jan 21, 2016

Qualified Immunity “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 … “For the second step in the qualified immunity analysis — whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the .conduct — the critical question is whether the contours of the right were ‘sufficiently