Case law

Gilliland v. City of Pleasanton

California Court of Appeal · Dec 9, 2025

But the opinion clearly indicated that we did not rely on Henry’s declaration to conclude that reversible error occurred. … City is entitled to immunity.

Duarte v. City of San Jose

100 Cal. App. 3d 648 · California Court of Appeal · Jan 2, 1980

We note that Government Code section 815, subdivision (b) provides that the liability “established by this part (commencing with Section 814) is subject to any immunity of the public entity provided by statute, including … No similarly explicit language declares that the liabilities imposed outside the Tort Claims Act are subject to any immunity established by the act.

Passman v. Torkan

34 Cal. App. 4th 607 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 26, 1995

immunity. … immunity.”

People Ex Rel. Lungren v. Peron

59 Cal. App. 4th 1383 · California Court of Appeal · Dec 12, 1997

Respondents, operating a commercial enterprise selling marijuana to any qualified public purchaser, do not qualify as “ ‘primary caregiver[s]’ ” of each such purchaser under section 11362.5(e) by simply obtaining from the … Respondents do not consistently assume responsibility for the health or safety of their customers qualified for the medicinal use of marijuana, and hence do not qualify as their primary caretakers as contemplated by section

People v. Nunn

46 Cal. 2d 460 · California Supreme Court · May 8, 1956

He thus qualified as an expert and *467 as such his opinion was properly received. (People v. Ernst, 121 Cal.App.2d 287 at 292 [ 263 P.2d 114 ]; People v. Horowitz, 70 Cal.App.2d 675, 689 [13] [ 161 P.2d 833 ].) … Here the inspector was immune from such prosecution. Defendant urges certain language used in People v.

Sanders v. City of Fresno

551 F. Supp. 2d 1149 · District Court, E.D. California · Apr 3, 2008

Qualified Immunity 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 … If the officer could have reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that his conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right, then the officer will receive qualified immunity.

Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles

66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 62 · California Court of Appeal · Oct 4, 2007

In opposition to the assertion of immunity, plaintiff conceded that Hawkins “is the type of facility set forth in the immunity statute.” 7 However, plaintiff *297 asserted that the exception to immunity set forth in Government … This was clearly set forth in the Federal Register, when comments were solicited on JCAHO’s application to be considered an accreditation organization.

Smith v. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians

115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 455 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 6, 2002

Instead, it establishes a general principle of tribal law defining what acts may be deemed to constitute a waiver of its immunity. … Although we fail to understand why the clearly established law on this point continues to be disregarded, in the interest of judicial economy, we shall deem the order to incorporate a judgment of dismissal.

A.B. v. County of San Diego

California Court of Appeal · Jul 18, 2025

immunity because it found there was “no clearly established law that would have put [the deputy defendants] on notice that the force they used was excessive.” … immunity.

Varshock v. Department of Forestry

194 Cal. App. 4th 635 · California Court of Appeal · Apr 20, 2011

Superior *649 Court, supra, 160 Cal.App.3d at p. 842 .) 8 The Commission therefore prefaced the proposed immunity “for any injury caused in fighting fires” with the qualifier “except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with … Hence, whether CAL-FIRE had an initial burden both to establish immunity under section 850.4 and to negate liability under the Vehicle Code section 17001 exception in order to shift the burden to the Varshocks to establish

Rodas v. Spiegel

104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 439 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 28, 2001

Both clearly stated what they covered. … Inasmuch as preparation of that estimate does not qualify as an intentional falsehood, it does not qualify as malice. (Civ.Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).)

Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

District Court, N.D. California · Mar 1, 2022

10 The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not 11 violate clearly established statutory or … Zoellner instead of simply making a mistake, then he would clearly not be 10 entitled to qualified immunity. See Devereaux v.

Alcala v. CITY OF CORCORAN

53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 908 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 5, 2007

This is sufficient to establish that Order No. 6.1 was the formally adopted written pursuit policy for the department. … Policy’s compliance with statutory requirements In order for the immunity to apply under section 17004.7, a public entity must adopt a pursuit policy that clearly and with specificity sets forth standards to guide officers

Bravo Ex Rel. Ramirez v. Hsu

404 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, C.D. California · Nov 18, 2005

Public officials such as Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless their conduct violates “ ‘clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” P.B. v. … If sufficient evidence is presented at summary judgment to make out a constitutional violation, the school officials still are entitled to qualified immunity if the constitutional right they violated was not clearly established

Bonilla v. City of San Diego

755 F. Supp. 293 · District Court, S.D. California · Jan 4, 1991

under the fourth amendment may still be reasonable under the qualified immunity test. … As the Supreme Court has .stated, “[Gjovernment officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

People v. Singleton

182 Cal. App. 4th 1 · California Court of Appeal · Feb 22, 2010

On this matter, the high court held that once the defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, the prosecuting authorities “ ‘have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted.’ ” (Kastigar … This court may find error only if the witness ‘ “clearly lacks qualification as an expert.” ’ [Citation.]

Johnson v. Davis

District Court, N.D. California · Sep 8, 2020

Harris, 935 19 F.3d 670, 676 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]here are rare cases where an affirmative defense, such as 20 immunity, may be so clear on the face of the complaint that dismissal may qualify as a strike for 21 … The danger faced by the plaintiff must be “clearly related to [the] initial 4 complaint.” Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing nexus 5 requirement).

Reynolds v. County of San Diego

858 F. Supp. 1064 · District Court, S.D. California · Jul 14, 1994

of clearly established law and the information the officers possessed. … Just as the officer in Rivera was entitled to immunity, Jackson is entitled to immunity. As previously established, Jackson’s actions were objectively reasonable.

Villanueva v. Fidelity National Title Company

California Supreme Court · Mar 18, 2021

Qualified immunity, for example, likewise supplies “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” (Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985) 472 U.S. 511, 526.) … Fitzgerald (1982) 457 U.S. 800, 819–820 [remanding for lower court to determine whether, in face of claimed qualified immunity, case could go to trial]).

Cory v. Shierloh

29 Cal. 3d 430 · California Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1981

Expressing a single exception to the foregoing sweeping immunity, the Legislature in section 25602.1 of the Business and Professions Code, added the following qualifying language: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section … It is well settled that the Legislature possesses a broad authority both to establish and to abolish tort causes of action.