Case law

Stewart v. McCollister

37 Cal. 2d 203 · California Supreme Court · May 15, 1951

But the question remains as to the extent to which such common law right of action was thereby qualified. … it was intended by said section to place in the hands of the negligent employee the power to conceal the fact of his employment for the short period allowed for the filing of a verified claim, and then to render himself immune

Bradford v. State of California

36 Cal. App. 3d 16 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 13, 1973

Code, § 820 et seq.).3 * 5 Section 815 states that there is no entity liability, unless it is established by statute. … It then points to the entity immunity for misrepresentation stated in section 818.8. Out of the many possible answers to this suggestion we mention only two: 1. The allegation is clearly surplusage.

Towery v. State of California

California Court of Appeal · Aug 14, 2017

Civil Code section 52.1 does not address the immunity established by Government Code section 844.6. … under 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. Housman

163 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 43 · Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · Nov 27, 1984

Not more than three (3) permits shall be issued for each qualified dwelling unit to any qualified applicant. … Clearly the cultural and educational rewards of international travel (Kent v.

Busch v. Torres

905 F. Supp. 766 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 1, 1995

Apart from lack of proof, plaintiffs claim of excessive force against defendant Bouffard also fails because defendant Bouffard is protected by qualified immunity. 6 Qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit for damages … Thus, there is no need to continue further with the qualified immunity analysis. See Hallstrom v. Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Killeen v.

Littlefield v. Cty. of Humboldt

California Court of Appeal · Jul 25, 2013

Strasburg (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1052 . . . states: „the status of [a] qualified patient does not confer an immunity from arrest. … “[T]he status of qualified patient does not confer an immunity from arrest.

Lucas v. County of Los Angeles

47 Cal. App. 4th 277 · California Court of Appeal · Jul 9, 1996

We determine further that the trial court erred in ruling that the federal court’s finding of qualified immunity in the civil rights action was res judicata on the issue of immunity in Government Code section 845.6 in the … The trial court overruled that part of the demurrer based upon the doctrine of res judicata, stating that “the federal court was determining whether an affirmative defense of qualified immunity had been established.

Soliz v. Williams

88 Cal. Rptr. 2d 184 · California Court of Appeal · Aug 24, 1999

Unless 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.’ [Citation.]” … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-819 (1982) (allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome qualified immunity). [¶] Rather, our cases make clear that the immunity is overcome in only two sets of circumstances.

Hernandez v. City of Napa

781 F. Supp. 2d 975 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 21, 2011

The standard for qualified immunity is the “ ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. … Therefore, these cases alone do not clearly establish a triable issue of fact on qualified immunity.

(PC) Davis v. Akabike

District Court, E.D. California · Oct 27, 2021

Qualified Immunity 14 Government officials enjoy qualified immunity from damages5 unless their conduct 15 violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … qu alified immunity because Plaintiff cannot show 28 a violation of a constitutional right that was clearly established.

Schultz v. The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 10, 2023

Although she described Schultz as “well qualified” for the 7 Scholarship and “admitted that some members of the panel posed questions with 8 ‘irreverence,’” she concluded “others presented themselves in both writing … Supp. 2d 10, 20 (D.D.C. 11 2003) (noting “sovereign immunity precludes demands for jury trials on claims against the 12 federal government unless Congress has clearly waived that immunity and expressly 13 granted

Berry v. State of California

2 Cal. App. 4th 688 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 10, 1992

We shall further conclude that a free stump does not qualify as a diving platform. … Berry appeals contending the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer as she had pled facts which established an exception to the section 831.7 immunity asserted by the State.

Nelson v. City of Davis

709 F. Supp. 2d 978 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 29, 2010

Qualified Immunity The qualified immunity doctrine shields public officials liability for the performance of their discretionary functions unless the official violates a clearly established constitutional norm of which a … The dispositive question therefore becomes whether the right abridged by that violation was “clearly established.”

Campos v. City of Merced

709 F. Supp. 2d 944 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 28, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability from civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “If the law did not put the [defendant] on notice that [his] conduct would be clearly unlawful, summary judgment based on qualified immunity is appropriate.” Id., at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 .

Kachlon v. Markowitz

168 Cal. App. 4th 316 · California Court of Appeal · Nov 17, 2008

Established law is to the contrary. … Moreover, we are unable to conclude that providing qualified immunity to beneficiaries who act as trustees results in an absurdity. (Unzueta v.

Hunter v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.

221 Cal. App. 4th 1510 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 11, 2013

To rule otherwise is to rule that there is a complete immunity to FEHA.” … The conduct therefore qualifies as a form of protected activity.

Brown v. Smith

235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 218 · California Court of Appeal, 5th District · Jul 2, 2018

Also, pupils who qualify for an individualized education program are allowed access to any special education and related services required by that program. ( § 120335, subd. (h).) … The applicable authorities-legal and scientific-clearly show that immunization is reasonably related to maintaining the health of the subject of the immunization as well as the public health. c.

Kilroy v. State

14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109 · California Court of Appeal · Jun 2, 2004

On the motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that Paulus is entitled to qualified immunity on the title 42 United States Code section 1983 claim and both defendants are entitled to immunity in connection with the … The issue decided in the federal proceeding (whether evidence must be suppressed because of deliberate and material omissions) is not identical to the issue to be decided here (whether Paulus is entitled to qualified immunity

People v. Onesra Enterprises

California Court of Appeal · Jan 19, 2017

Immunity—LAMC Section 45.19.6.3, Subdivision E In regard to LAMC section 45.19.6.2, the trial court determined defendants did not qualify for immunity under LAMC section 45.19.6.3 because they failed to satisfy the … Thus, the use of the disjunctive clearly expresses that the failure to obtain registration either in 2011 or 2012 will suffice to disqualify the defendant from immunity.

Eberhard v. California Highway Patrol

73 F. Supp. 3d 1122 · District Court, N.D. California · Nov 6, 2014

Qualified Immunity As an alternative basis for dismissal of the Section 1983 claim, Lott requests qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was “clearly established