Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Becerra v. County of Santa Cruzgreen2 sentences2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut 2019Code, § 815.) Thus, a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against the County. ( Becerra v. County of Santa Cruz (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1450 , 1457, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 165 ( Becerra ).) However, Doe asserted the County and county social worker, Valerie Arnold, are liable for *687 her injuries under Government Code sections 815.6 and 820. 8 It appears the parties and the trial court treated Government Code section 815.6 as setting forth a form of statutory negligence. | 2 | 3 |
Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Districtgreen1 sentence2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut | 1 | 1 |
Brenner v. City of El Cajongreen1 sentence2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut | 1 | 1 |
Metcalf v. County of San Joaquingreen2 sentences2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut 2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs.green1 sentence2025Code, § 815, subd. (a); Doe v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 675, 686 [a common law negligence claim may not be asserted against public entities 17 San Joaquin (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1121, 1129 (Metcalf); accord, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 639 , 652-653.) “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 .) “Since the duty of a governmental agency can only be established by statut | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkinson v. Elk Corporation
green
2 sentences2019Even if the trial court should have expressly addressed Doe's claims against the County under the rubric of Government Code section 815.6, there was no prejudice resulting from this failure because the claim would not have survived nonsuit. ( Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739 , 748, 757-758, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433 [although trial court's grant of nonsuit in favor of respondent on court's own motion was "irregular," the court found no prejudice because the plaintiff's claims would not have survived nonsuit].) Government Code section 815.6 provides, "[w]here a public entity is under 2019Even if the trial court should have expressly addressed Doe's claims against the County under the rubric of Government Code section 815.6, there was no prejudice resulting from this failure because the claim would not have survived nonsuit. ( Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739 , 748, 757-758, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 433 [although trial court's grant of nonsuit in favor of respondent on court's own motion was "irregular," the court found no prejudice because the plaintiff's claims would not have survived nonsuit].) Government Code section 815.6 provides, "[w]here a public entity is under | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Domitz v. Springfield Bottlers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010In Domitz v. Springfield Bottlers (1949) 359 Mo. 412 [ 221 S.W.2d 831 ] (Domitz), two vehicles swerved to avoid each other at an intersection and one of them hit a pedestrian, who sued the owner of two large van trailers parked near the intersection that allegedly obstmcted the views of passing motorists. 2010In Domitz v. Springfield Bottlers (1949) 359 Mo. 412 [ 221 S.W.2d 831 ] (Domitz), two vehicles swerved to avoid each other at an intersection and one of them hit a pedestrian, who sued the owner of two large van trailers parked near the intersection that allegedly obstmcted the views of passing motorists. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Sun'n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank
green
1 sentence2001In arguing that a common law negligence claim against Wells Fargo is not precluded by the Commercial Code, Newman places primary reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sun ’n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank, supra, 21 Cal.3d 671 , which permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with a negligence cause of action against a bank that had accepted for payment altered checks from a dishonest employee. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.