Case law

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.

Washington v. Garcia

977 F. Supp. 1067 · District Court, S.D. California · Sep 10, 1997

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY An officer is entitled to qualified immunity so long as his or her actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The qualified immunity standard requires a two-step analysis: (1) Was the law governing *1074 the official’s conduct clearly established?

AMBERGER-WARREN v. City of Piedmont

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 631 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 6, 2006

We agree with the trial court that the pathway here is clearly a trail under the statute, notwithstanding plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary. C. … It is well established that the immunity covers negligent maintenance of a trail, such as allowing accumulation of debris as alleged here. (Astenius v.

Raytheon Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission

212 Cal. App. 3d 1242 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 7, 1989

The court made it clear that the condition did not have to be presently disabling in order to qualify as a physical handicap. (32 Cal.3d at pp. 609-610.) … AIDS is the end stage of this gradual immune system deterioration.

In Re Maki

56 Cal. App. 2d 635 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 14, 1943

He qualifies himself for such responsibility by his allegiance to time honored ethical standards as well as by complying with the requirements of the state in gaining the knowledge and skill which qualify him to administer … Rather are we impelled by the necessity of determining the intent of the lawmakers and whether that intent violates an established right.

Fleming v. LeFevere

423 F. Supp. 2d 1064 · District Court, C.D. California · Jan 17, 2006

LeFevere Violated Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights, He Is Entitled To Qualified Immunity. Defendant Dr. … LeFevere also asserts that he is protected by qualified immunity because he acted within the established law at the time. Defendant Dr.

Jones v. Price

District Court, E.D. California · Jun 1, 2022

Qualified Immunity 24 Qualified immunity protects public officials from a court action unless their conduct 25 violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established … It is the Plaintiff’s burden to establish that the law 16 was “clearly established.”

Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District

982 F. Supp. 1396 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 10, 1997

Officials are shielded by qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id.; accord Cohen v. … . -, 117 S.Ct. 1290 , 137 L.Ed.2d 364 (1997) (liability is established when the Court determines that a reasonable person would have known that the action clearly violates a citizen’s right).

Blumberg v. Gates

144 F. Supp. 2d 1221 · District Court, C.D. California · Jun 13, 2001

Having lost on absolute immunity grounds, the Trevino defendants next sought qualified immunity. See Trevino II, 99 F.3d at 916 . … immunity” conflates the qualified immunity analysis with the underlying merits determination.

Neveu v. City of Fresno

392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 · District Court, E.D. California · Jul 15, 2005

Individuals are not immune under the doctrine of qualified immunity if they violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 6 Harlow v. … “To determine whether qualified immunity is appropriate, a court must identify the specific right allegedly violated and determine whether that right was so clearly established as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional

Garcia v. Williams

704 F. Supp. 984 · District Court, N.D. California · Sep 1, 1988

In order for the qualified immunity to apply in any context, the official’s conduct must be objectively reasonable and not in violation of clearly established law. Harlow v. … If the plaintiff does establish such intent, there can be no qualified immunity.” Id. at 1051 n. 29.

Conejo Wellness Center, Inc. v. City of Agoura Hills

214 Cal. App. 4th 1534 · California Court of Appeal · Mar 29, 2013

The MMPA establishes three groups of persons entitled to the immunity described above: (1) qualified patients, persons with identification cards, and the primary caregivers of such persons; (2) individuals who assist the … Significantly, the MMPA also expressly extends immunity from prosecution under the same enumerated Health and Safety Code sections to certain “collective” conduct: “Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards

Mercy-Peninsula Ambulance, Inc. v. County of San Mateo

592 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, N.D. California · Aug 8, 1984

Pursuant to that program, the County established procedures to certify qualified ambulance personnel to perform paramedic services under the supervision of an “acute care hospital” within the meaning of Cal.Health & Saf.Code … They establish minimum training standards but permit counties to establish more exacting ones.

Roe Ex Rel. Callahan v. Gustine Unified School District

678 F. Supp. 2d 1008 · District Court, E.D. California · Dec 22, 2009

However, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects “government officials performing discretionary functions ... from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … In analyzing a claim of qualified immunity, there are two inquiries: “First, we inquire whether, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, that party has established a violation of a federal right

Warren v. Marcus

78 F. Supp. 3d 1228 · District Court, N.D. California · Jan 29, 2015

Qualified Immunity Defendant also moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs wrongful arrest claim on the grounds that he is entitled to 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 a reasonable person

Abudiab v. City & County

833 F. Supp. 2d 1168 · District Court, N.D. California · Jun 20, 2011

Plaintiff, in opposition, makes no argument with respect to defendants’ claim of qualified immunity, cites to no authority that would support the notion that the law was clearly established and therefore appears to concede … Accordingly, Georgopoulos is not entitled to qualified immunity because per Awabdy , it was clearly established that non-peace officers could be held liable for malicious prosecution where a “state or local official [ ] .

Mozzetti v. City of Brisbane

67 Cal. App. 3d 565 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 1977

If the trial court determines that the defense has been established, the jury is instructed that the public entity is immune as a matter of law for design-related damages, but if the damage is unrelated to the design (e.g … In the second place, examination of the record is persuasive that appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence establishing the criteria *574 of design immunity, and, as a result, the instruction on design immunity should

H & M ASSOCIATES v. City of El Centro

109 Cal. App. 3d 399 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 20, 1980

Defendants have thus failed to make the required showing necessary for immunity. Accordingly, on this sparse record, we conclude governmental discretionary immunity has not been established. … This argument, based upon these absolute and qualified statutory privileges, at this stage of the proceedings suffers the same fate encountered by the statutory immunity contention.

Salazar v. Burresch

47 F. Supp. 2d 1105 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 28, 1999

An officer is entitled to qualified immunity if, "in light of clearly established principles governing the conduct in question, the officer objectively could have believed that his conduct was lawful.” Act Up! … While Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the law was clearly established (Collins v.

Henry v. Sanchez

923 F. Supp. 1266 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 7, 1996

Qualified immunity shields a public officer from a suit for damages if a reasonable officer in the defendant’s position could have believed his conduct was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information the … The qualified immunity test requires a two part analysis. First, the Court must determine whether the law governing the officer’s conduct was clearly established at the time the challenged conduct occurred.