A rule, policy, manual, or guideline of state or local government setting forth standards of conduct or guidelines for its employees in the conduct of their public employment shall not be considered a statute, ordinance, or regulation of that public entity within the meaning of Section 669, unless the rule, manual, policy, or guideline has been formally adopted as a statute, as an ordinance of a local governmental entity in this state empowered to adopt ordinances, or as a regulation by an agency of the state pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code), or by an agency of the United States government pursuant to the federal Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 5001) of Title 5 of the United States Code). This section affects only the presumption set forth in Section 669, and is not otherwise intended to affect the admissibility or inadmissibility of the rule, policy, manual, or guideline under other provisions of law.
Notes of Decisions
Lugtu v. California High. Patrol, 28 P.3d 249 (Cal. 2001).
· cites it 6× “The manual cannot be read to establish the standard of care, because there is no indication that the *541 manual was adopted pursuant to the state (or federal) Administrative Procedure Act.”
Steinle v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 230 F. Supp. 3d 994 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The United States also argues that Plaintiffs cannot rely on alleged violations of BLM internal policies to establish a duty, both because the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for violations of duties impose by federal law, and because the internal manuals cited by…”
Colvin v. City of Gardena, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10283 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “) 9 However, Evidence Code section 669.1 did not divest local police departments of their power to promulgate rules, regulations or guidelines.”
Streit v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2001).
· cites it 3× “It also rejected the LASD’s argument that “the amendment of Cal. Evid.Code § 669.1 in some way modified the definition of a ‘public entity.”
Strong v. State, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1439 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“) “Absent such adoption, Evidence Code section 669.1 forbids the use of the manual to establish the presumption of negligence that otherwise would arise under Evidence Code section 669.”
Schonfeldt v. State, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1776 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
“(Evid. Code, § 669.1; see generally Posey v.”
Peter H. Doggett v. United States, 858 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The court concluded that internal police regulations do not create a duty toward citizens based on its assumption that an amendment to the Evidence Code, Cal.Evid. Code § 669.1, stating that an internal police force regulation pertaining to the use of deadly force shall not be…”
Maddox v. City of Los Angeles, 792 F.2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1986).
“Code § 669 has been statutorily overruled by Cal.Evid.Code § 669.1. However, section 669.”
Ellen v. United States, 32 F. App'x 270 (9th Cir. 2002).
“If this claim is that the district court applied the wrong standard in failing to hold that failure to give low altitude warnings in the language specified in the Handbook is negligence per se, it is foreclosed by Cal.”
Wedgeworth v. City of Newport Beach CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The police department’s policy manuals cannot create a duty of care because there is no evidence they were passed by the Legislature or adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (§ 11340 et seq.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.