A public entity is not required to provide for the defense of a criminal action or proceeding (including a proceeding to remove an officer under Sections 3060 to 3073, inclusive, of the Government Code) brought against an employee or former employee, but a public entity may provide for the defense of a criminal action or proceeding (including a proceeding to remove an officer under Sections 3060 to 3073, inclusive, of the Government Code) brought against an employee or former employee if:
(a)The criminal action or proceeding is brought on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity; and
(b)The public entity determines that such defense would be in the best interests of the public entity and that the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent interests of the public entity.
Notes of Decisions
Mt. Hawley Ins. v. Lopez, 215 Cal. App. 4th 1385 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “where such liability arose from an act or omission in the scope of his employment, and an insurance contract for such purpose is valid and binding notwithstanding Section 1668 of the Civil Code, Section 533 of the Insurance Code, or any other provision of law.”
Los Angeles Police Prot. League v. City of Los Angeles, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5915 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiffs further contend that the Labor Code provision prevails over an apparently conflicting provision of the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code section 995.8. I. Government Code Section 995.”
City of Bell v. Superior Court, 36 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “6 is interpreted to mean that a public entity can contract to provide a public employee with a criminal defense even when Government Code section 995.8 does not specifically allow it, there is no need for the restrictions of Government Code section 995.”
Hall v. California Dep't of Corr., 835 F. Supp. 522 (N.D. Cal. 1993).
“771 (county may arbitrarily refuse defense under California Government Code § 995.8, which permissively allows public entity to provide for criminal defense).”
Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “) Government Code section 995.8 provides that “a public entity may provide for the defense of a criminal action or proceeding .”
City of Bell v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The language set forth above is to be contrasted with the language of Government Code section 995.8, which governs the provision of a defense to criminal actions.”
City of Bell v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The language set forth above is to be contrasted with the language of Government Code section 995.8, which governs the provision of a defense to criminal actions.”
City of Bell v. Super. Ct. (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “The language set forth above is to be contrasted with the language of Government Code section 995.8, which governs the provision of a defense to criminal actions.”
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.