Cal. Codes » Government Code / TITLE 1. GENERAL / DIVISION 3.6. CLAIMS AND ACTIONS AGAINST PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / PART 2. LIABILITY OF PUBLIC ENTITIES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES / CHAPTER 6. Administration of Tax Laws
California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 860.2 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by:

(a)Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding or action for or incidental to the assessment or collection of a tax.

(b)An act or omission in the interpretation or application of any law relating to a tax.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U.S. 230 (2019). “After the trial court denied in part the Board's motion for summary judgment, the Board petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus ordering dismissal on the ground that the State of California was immune from suit. The Board argued that, under the Full Faith and…”
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (2003). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §860.2 (West 1995). The District Court denied CFTB’s motion for summary judgment or dismissal, prompting CFTB to file a second petition in the Nevada Supreme Court.”
City of Dinuba v. Cnty. of Tulare, 161 P.3d 1168 (Cal. 2007). “Government Code Section 860.2 Does Not Bar Recovery Defendants argue plaintiffs’ action to recover misallocated tax revenue is barred by the Act.”
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 578 U.S. 171 (2016). “Cal. Govt.Code Ann. § 860.2 (West 1995); see also § 860.”
City of Clovis v. Cnty. of Fresno, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1469 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “First, although the Government Claims Act immunizes a public agency from liability for “an injury” caused by an erroneous interpretation or application of “any law relating to a tax” (Gov. Code, § 860.2), it also defines “ ‘injury’ ” as a harm “of such nature that it would be…”
Bates v. Franchise Tax Bd., 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004). “Government Code Section 860.2 Defendants contend the damages action is barred because a tax refund action is the exclusive means for review of state tax proceedings.”
Craland, Inc. v. State of California, 214 Cal. App. 3d 1400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “” Government Code section 860.2 provides: “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by: [][] (a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding or action for or incidental to the assessment or collection of a tax.”
Franchise Tax Bd. Vs. Hyatt, 2017 NV 102 (Nev. 2017). “Cal. Gov't Code § 860.2 (West 2012). FTB contends that it should receive the immunity protection provided by California statutes to the extent that such immunity does not violate Nevada's public policies under comity.”
Matthews v. San Diego Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (S.D. Cal. 2019). “, California 25 Government Code section 860.2. Section 860.”
Byrd v. Cnty. of Los Angeles CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). “tative ruling indicating it intended to reject most of the County’s arguments, but to sustain the demurrer as to all the causes of action “on the grounds [the] County is immune for any act or omission in the interpretation or application of any law relating to a tax, and no suit…”
City of Clovis v. Cnty. of Fresno (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “First, although the Government Claims Act immunizes a public agency from liability for “an injury” caused by an erroneous interpretation or application of “any law relating to a tax” (Gov. Code, § 860.2), it also defines “‘injury’” as a harm “of such nature that it would be…”
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.