Case law

De Contreras v. City of Rialto

894 F. Supp. 2d 1238 · District Court, C.D. California · Sep 25, 2012

immunity (i.e., whether the plaintiffs allegedly violated right was clearly established at the time of the injury). … Hence, the Court finds that Lee is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding a second application of a taser, after a first application that was objectively reasonable, was not then clearly established.

Ayala v. KC Environmental Health

426 F. Supp. 2d 1070 · District Court, E.D. California · May 8, 2006

Qualified immunity protects section 1983 defendants “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Qualified immunity “turn[s] primarily on objective factors”: “Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official’s conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government

Portnoy v. City of Davis

663 F. Supp. 2d 949 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 9, 2009

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, qualified immunity is not available to award judgment in favor of defendants. *961 D.

Cryolife, Inc. v. Superior Court

2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 396 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2003

(a).) 4 A general demurrer will lie where the complaint “has included allegations that clearly disclose some defense or bar to recovery.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. … Therefore, the key question is whether Cryolife qualifies for protection under section 425.13 as a health dispensary. Cryolife relies upon the decision in Coe v.

McNair v. City and County of San Francisco

5 Cal. App. 5th 1154 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 22, 2016

Next, we determine whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. … Immunizing Dr. Kim from potential liability in this case for disclosing her public safety concerns to the DMV clearly advances this policy.

Hernandez v. State of California

11 Cal. App. 3d 895 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 1, 1970

First, the act of keeping records and determining what facts should be recorded in the care, treatment, testing, examination, and diagnosis of mental patients does not qualify as an exact science but rather involves elements … In our view the purported causes of action for negligent prescription and for negligent diagnosis are clearly barred by the specific immunity provisions of Government Code section 855.8, subdivision (a): “Neither a public

Walker v. Benter

41 F. Supp. 2d 1067 · District Court, C.D. California · Feb 1, 1999

The State defendants also raise the defense of qualified immunity. … The inquiry for determining whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for a violation of the Fourth Amendment requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established?

Boarman v. County of Sacramento

55 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 21, 2014

Qualified Immunity Law enforcement officers are shielded from suit unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Under the second prong, the court determines whether the constitutional right was “clearly established.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Am. Indian Health & Servs. Corp. v. Kent

234 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Jun 19, 2018

The states' immunity from suit is sometimes referred to as "Eleventh Amendment immunity." … An important limit on the sovereign immunity principle was established in Ex parte Young (1908) 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , [ 52 L.Ed. 714 ] ( Young ). *783 That case involved a challenge to a Minnesota law reducing the

Breazeal v. Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital

234 Cal. App. 3d 1329 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 2, 1991

Here, nonsuit was granted on grounds that the evidence established the defendants’ affirmative defense of Good Samaritan immunity under sections 2395 and 2396. … Where such an urgent need of care persisted in order to preserve life after death had been narrowly avoided, the emergency circumstances clearly persisted. *1342 3.

Avila v. Citrus Community College District

41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 299 · California Supreme Court · Apr 6, 2006

The Assembly Committee on the Judiciary analysis of the bill noted the uncertainty in the Courts of Appeal over the availability of Civil Code section 846 qualified immunity to public entities. (Assem. … Assembly Bill No. 555, “by providing a qualified immunity, would limit a public entity’s duty to keep its land safe for certain recreational users.” (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem.

J.C. ex rel. R.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District

711 F. Supp. 2d 1094 · District Court, C.D. California · May 6, 2010

In the Ninth Circuit, specific binding precedent is not required to show that a right is clearly established for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. Maraziti v. … In sum, Hart, Lue-Sang, and Warren are clearly entitled to qualified immunity in this case. IV.

Puliafico v. County of San Bernardino

42 F. Supp. 2d 1000 · District Court, C.D. California · Apr 12, 1999

To determine whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court asks “whether reasonable officers could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that … could have believed their conduct lawful under the clearly established principles of law governing that conduct.”

People v. Doss

4 Cal. App. 4th 1585 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 1, 1992

Clearly, a pharmacist who purchases controlled substances with the intention of distributing them to persons not holding valid prescriptions is not conducting the ordinary business of the pharmacy, and the drugs are not “ … He had qualified as an expert witness six times concerning the possession, manufacture, and possession for sale of scheduled pharmaceuticals.

Coopers & Lybrand v. Superior Court

212 Cal. App. 3d 524 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 1989

Clearly a controversy exists.” (Recommendation, supra, at pp. G-34, G-35.) … Such an approach again would qualify arbitral immunity.

Barrilleaux v. Mendocino County

61 F. Supp. 3d 906 · District Court, N.D. California · Jul 25, 2014

“To prove a public program or service violates Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability’; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a … Arby’s Huntington Beach, 359 F.Supp.2d 938, 947 (C.D.Cal.2005) (finding plaintiffs allegation that “he would and will return to Arby’s if it is made accessible to persons with disabilities ... clearly satisfies] [plaintiffs

Gregory v. City of Vallejo

63 F. Supp. 3d 1171 · District Court, E.D. California · Oct 28, 2014

Calhoun’s entitlement to qualified immunity (id. at 18-19). … Qualified Immunity Defendants argue Officer Calhoun is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiffs cannot show their Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the shooting. (Defs.’

ICR Graduate School v. Honig

758 F. Supp. 1350 · District Court, S.D. California · Mar 7, 1991

After finding that the defendants had acted in good faith, the jury denied monetary relief under the doctrine of qualified immunity. Id. … qualified immunity doctrine.

West v. State of California

181 Cal. App. 3d 753 · California Court of Appeal · May 29, 1986

These defendants are protected by discretionary licensing immunity and are not liable for plaintiffs’ damages. … The contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency responsible for its implementation and interpretation is entitled to great weight unless clearly erroneous. (Davenport v.

State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Super. Ct.

California Court of Appeal · Nov 2, 2022

It is trumped by the specific immunity provision of section 854.8. … “The plain language of . . . section 855 clearly states that not all statutory or regulatory violations will provide a basis for liability, only those that prescribe minimum standards. . . .