mandatory duty bar in California

9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Lebbos v. State Bargreen calctapp · 1985 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021(See Lebbos v. State Bar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 656, 669 [finding that trial court properly sustained demurrer to violation of a mandatory duty claim based on immunity of Civil Code section 47].) Moreover, “[i]f a specific immunity statute applies, ‘it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.’ ” (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635 .) Accordingly, the general duty set forth in the IPA and Government Code section 815.6 cannot abrogate the immunity set forth in the specific immunity statutes. 2021(See Lebbos v. State Bar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 656, 669 [finding that trial court properly sustained demurrer to violation of a mandatory duty claim based on immunity of Civil Code section 47].) Moreover, “[i]f a specific immunity statute applies, ‘it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.’ ” (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635 .) Accordingly, the general duty set forth in the IPA and Government Code section 815.6 cannot abrogate the immunity set forth in the specific immunity statutes.	2	2
Castorena v. City of Los Angelesgreen calctapp · 1973 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
Garrison v. Rourkegreen cal · 1948 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
People v. Curtisgreen calctapp · 1986 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
City and County of San Francisco v. Coopergreen cal · 1975 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
Edwards v. Steelegreen cal · 1979 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
Cake v. City of Los Angelesgreen cal · 1913 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1988–1996 2 sentences 1996A failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter]; City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter]; Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period]; Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax assessment valid 1988For example, a failure to comply with a mandatory duty did not bar further action in Edwards v. Steele (1979) 25 Cal.3d 406, 409-413 [administrative decision valid although hearing held and decision rendered after deadlines specified in city charter], City and County of San Francisco v. Cooper (1975) 13 Cal.3d 898, 931 [wage resolution valid though enacted prior to the date designated in city charter], Garrison v. Rourke (1948) 32 Cal.2d 430, 434-436 [judicial decision valid though rendered after statutorily prescribed period], Cake v. City of Los Angeles (1913) 164 Cal. 705, 709-710 [tax asse	2	2
Shalant v. Girardigreen cal · 2011 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024(See Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 196 , disapproved on other grounds in Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172, fn. 3 [“In the context of this statutory scheme, the word ‘new’ [in Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (a)] plainly refers to a civil lawsuit filed after entry of the prefiling order”].) Appellant’s Second Amended Complaint The operative pleading is appellant’s second amended complaint (SAC), which consists of the following four causes of action: First cause of action: Respondent failed to perform a mandatory duty in viola	1	1
French v. Edwardsgreen · 1872 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996In Curtis, the court relied upon language contained in French v. Edwards (1872) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 506, 511 [ 20 L.Ed. 702, 703 ], which was also quoted with approval in People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 961 . 1996In Curtis, the court relied upon language contained in French v. Edwards (1872) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 506, 511 [ 20 L.Ed. 702, 703 ], which was also quoted with approval in People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 961 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Creason v. Department of Health Services green cal · 1998 2 sentences 2021(See Lebbos v. State Bar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 656, 669 [finding that trial court properly sustained demurrer to violation of a mandatory duty claim based on immunity of Civil Code section 47].) Moreover, “[i]f a specific immunity statute applies, ‘it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.’ ” (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635 .) Accordingly, the general duty set forth in the IPA and Government Code section 815.6 cannot abrogate the immunity set forth in the specific immunity statutes. 2021(See Lebbos v. State Bar (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 656, 669 [finding that trial court properly sustained demurrer to violation of a mandatory duty claim based on immunity of Civil Code section 47].) Moreover, “[i]f a specific immunity statute applies, ‘it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.’ ” (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635 .) Accordingly, the general duty set forth in the IPA and Government Code section 815.6 cannot abrogate the immunity set forth in the specific immunity statutes.	2	2021–2021
Forrest v. Department of Corporations green calctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2024(See Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 196 , disapproved on other grounds in Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172, fn. 3 [“In the context of this statutory scheme, the word ‘new’ [in Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7, subdivision (a)] plainly refers to a civil lawsuit filed after entry of the prefiling order”].) Appellant’s Second Amended Complaint The operative pleading is appellant’s second amended complaint (SAC), which consists of the following four causes of action: First cause of action: Respondent failed to perform a mandatory duty in viola	1	2024–2024
Otworth v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. green calctapp · 1985 1 sentence 2023Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 457 .) Instead, an “ ‘order sustaining a demurrer . . . is generally reviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the action.’ ” (Singhania v. Uttarwar (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 416, 425 .) The heirs argue that they asserted the mandatory duty claim in their wrongful death action, and therefore the trial court’s order dismissing their wrongful death claim also dismissed their mandatory duty claim.	1	2023–2023
Singhania v. Uttarwar green calctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2023Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 457 .) Instead, an “ ‘order sustaining a demurrer . . . is generally reviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the action.’ ” (Singhania v. Uttarwar (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 416, 425 .) The heirs argue that they asserted the mandatory duty claim in their wrongful death action, and therefore the trial court’s order dismissing their wrongful death claim also dismissed their mandatory duty claim.	1	2023–2023
B.H. v. County of San Bernardino green cal · 2015 1 sentence 2023Specifically, it argued that establishing public entity liability under Government Code section 815.6 required, as relevant to the demurrer, a showing that “a mandatory duty was imposed on the public entity by an enactment,” citing B.H. v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 62 Cal.4th 168 , and Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887 .8 CalTrans further argued that such a mandatory duty exists only if the 8 Government Code section 815.6 provides that a public entity is not immune from liability where the public entity “is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed	1	2023–2023
O'TOOLE v. Superior Court green calctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2023Specifically, it argued that establishing public entity liability under Government Code section 815.6 required, as relevant to the demurrer, a showing that “a mandatory duty was imposed on the public entity by an enactment,” citing B.H. v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 62 Cal.4th 168 , and Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887 .8 CalTrans further argued that such a mandatory duty exists only if the 8 Government Code section 815.6 provides that a public entity is not immune from liability where the public entity “is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed	1	2023–2023
Guzman v. County of Monterey green cal · 2009 1 sentence 2023Specifically, it argued that establishing public entity liability under Government Code section 815.6 required, as relevant to the demurrer, a showing that “a mandatory duty was imposed on the public entity by an enactment,” citing B.H. v. County of San Bernardino (2015) 62 Cal.4th 168 , and Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887 .8 CalTrans further argued that such a mandatory duty exists only if the 8 Government Code section 815.6 provides that a public entity is not immune from liability where the public entity “is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed	1	2023–2023
Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. green calctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2021(See Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 .) For the same reasons we found the jury’s negligence finding precluded a favorable finding on the causation element of her mandatory duty claim, we determine the court’s ruling was not prejudicial.	1	2021–2021
Elson v. Public Utilities Commission green calctapp · 1975 2 sentences 1996He cites those cases, which the trial court accepted, which set forth the precedent that a breach by the state of a mandatory duty precludes immunity, i.e., Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 577 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] and Young v. City of Inglewood (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 437 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 724 ]. 1996He cites those cases, which the trial court accepted, which set forth the precedent that a breach by the state of a mandatory duty precludes immunity, i.e., Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 577 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] and Young v. City of Inglewood (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 437 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 724 ].	1	1996–1996
Young v. City of Inglewood green calctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1996He cites those cases, which the trial court accepted, which set forth the precedent that a breach by the state of a mandatory duty precludes immunity, i.e., Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 577 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] and Young v. City of Inglewood (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 437 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 724 ]. 1996He cites those cases, which the trial court accepted, which set forth the precedent that a breach by the state of a mandatory duty precludes immunity, i.e., Elson v. Public Utilities Commission (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 577 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 305 ] and Young v. City of Inglewood (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 437 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 724 ].	1	1996–1996
People v. McGee green cal · 1977 1 sentence 1996In Curtis, the court relied upon language contained in French v. Edwards (1872) 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 506, 511 [ 20 L.Ed. 702, 703 ], which was also quoted with approval in People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 961 .	1	1996–1996
Gray v. State of California green calctapp · 1989 2 sentences 1994In 1989 the Court of Appeal in Gray v. State of California (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 151 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 581 ] held that section 12076 did not establish a mandatory duty the violation of which would support a private action for damages under the California Tort Claims Act. 1994In 1989 the Court of Appeal in Gray v. State of California (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 151 [ 254 Cal.Rptr. 581 ] held that section 12076 did not establish a mandatory duty the violation of which would support a private action for damages under the California Tort Claims Act.	1	1994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Government Code § 815.6 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 9 (1988–2024) MI 7 (1981–2018) OH 3 (2008–2023)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check