Case law

Baker v. Sudo

194 Cal. App. 3d 936 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 14, 1987

Section 25602.1 merely established a narrow exception to the immunity provided for in section 25602. Senate Bill No. 1053 did not repeal the immunity. … The Cory court clearly invited the Legislature to take corrective action back then: “. . .

Republic of Philippines Ex Rel. Central Bank of the Philippines v. Marcos

665 F. Supp. 793 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 11, 1987

The government argues that the FSIA only waives sovereign immunity in certain commercial situations and, thus, is not applicable in the instant case. This is clearly incorrect. … . §§ 1251 , 1351, 1364), which established the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 23 U.S.T. 3227, T.I.A.S.

Walker v. Woodford

593 F. Supp. 2d 1140 · District Court, S.D. California · Aug 28, 2008

Qualified Immunity Defendants have raised the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. … This, too, supports their defense of qualified immunity.

Iverson v. Muroc Unified School District

32 Cal. App. 4th 218 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 1995

In this case we address the question whether Government Code section 831.7, 1 which provides qualified immunity to public entities and public employees for injuries sustained by a person during “hazardous recreational activity … 846, sought to give a public entity and its employees specific qualified immunity from *224 liability for injuries due to defined “hazardous recreational activity” on public property.

Wadley v. County of Los Angeles

205 Cal. App. 2d 668 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 16, 1962

First, it should be pointed out that in the Muskopf case, supra, the Supreme Court clearly distinguished between the doctrine of sovereign governmental immunity as established by court rule and governmental immunity established … Plaintiff asserts that the claims provisions are clearly statutes of limitation and that they are void because they establish a different limitation in the case of actions against public agencies as distinguished from those

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.

Pacific Air Lines, Inc. v. Superior Court

231 Cal. App. 2d 587 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 7, 1965

Every statement in the document before us is declared “under penalty of perjury,” and clearly is vouched for by declarant. … They seek to expand this rule to require negation of contract venue, even when the complaint clearly states a cause of action in tort alone.

People v. Gibson

165 Cal. App. 2d 685 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 4, 1958

The question was apparently asked in an effort to prove that the statements made by Gibson to the investigating officers were elicited by means of promises of immunity. … Christensen’s apartment, the fingerprint evidence clearly established Gibson’s presence at the scene. The fact that Mrs.

Towery v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Aug 10, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. … 42 United States Code section 1983 unless the officer has violated a ‗clearly established‘ constitutional right.‖ (Venegas II, supra, 153 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1241–1242, quoting Saucier v.

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.

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.”

Mazor v. Shelton

637 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, N.D. California · Feb 18, 1986

Plaintiff must establish personal responsibility. Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d at 830 . … The Supreme Court has recognized two types of immunity defenses: absolute and qualified. Absolute immunity is accorded to government officials who perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court

68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 656 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 28, 2007

[f] California courts do not enforce the federal marijuana possession laws when defendants prosecuted for marijuana possession have a qualified immunity under [the CUA]. … But Kha is clearly not a criminal defendant with respect to the subject marijuana.

Stecks v. Young

38 Cal. App. 4th 365 · California Court of Appeal · Sep 18, 1995

Section 11172, subdivision (a) establishes immunity. It “cloaks mandated reporters with immunity from civil and criminal liability for making any report ‘required or authorized’ by the Act.” (Ferraro v. … Where such reports turn out to be false, the Legislature may deem it appropriate to apply qualified immunity and to permit recovery where the wrongfully accused person can establish that the report was known to be false or

Corning Hospital District v. Superior Court

57 Cal. 2d 488 · California Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1962

It is clear from the legislation as a whole, however, that section 1 cannot be interpreted in this manner but is qualified by sections 3 and 4. … Corning Hospital Dist. recognized causes of action which under long-established rules had previously been denied recognition.

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.

Sanborn v. Chronicle Publishing Co.

18 Cal. 3d 406 · California Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1976

Conditional or qualified privilege. … Simpson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 301, 308 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 855 , 461 P.2d 39 ], illustrating the type of evidence sufficient to establish malice.) d.) Statutory immunity.

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.

Lum v. County of San Joaquin

756 F. Supp. 2d 1243 · District Court, E.D. California · Nov 18, 2010

In the absence of a clearly established special relationship, the court should apply the multi-factor public policy analysis first articulated in Rowland v. … Collins is clearly distinguishable, addressing as it does the question of hiring and firing. In any event, here plaintiffs rely on long-standing practice to establish authority, a matter not addressed by Collins . 4 .

Allen v. San Diego Convention Center Corp., Inc.

California Court of Appeal · Dec 19, 2022

Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence, nonstate actors are entitled to immunity where the challenged restraint is one “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy” and “actively supervised by the State … were subject to oversight by the immune public districts.