Amylou R. v. County of Riverside Appellant's Opening Brief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A. B. The County Is Immune From Liability Pursuant To Government Code Section 821.6. The County Is Immune From Liability Pursuant to Government Code Section 820.2. 42 44 V. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE BY REASON OF THE SEPARATE VERDICTS, PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE OBTAINED DOUBLE RECOVERY FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS. 48 CONCLUSION 49 111
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Alicia T. v. County of Los Angeles (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 869 Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 588 Block v, Sacramento Clinical Labs, Inc. (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 386 Brodie v. Montalbano (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 725 Cervantez v. J. C. Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579 Citizens Capital Corp. v. Spohn (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 887 City of Newport Beach v. Sasse (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 803 Cohen v. Southland (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 130 Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197 Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875 Grimes v. Carter (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 694 In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888 39 45 22 21 38,39 43 39 30 27, 38 24 3, 4 24 41 IV
Page 1 and 2: 4th Civil No. E011954 IN THE COURT
Page 3: C. The Trial Court's Error Was Prej
Page 7 and 8: Morgan v. County of Yuba (1964) 230
Page 9 and 10: Williams v. State of California (19
Page 11 and 12: of action for defamation, which had
Page 13 and 14: complain of physical discomfort or
Page 15 and 16: arrived around 12:45 a.m. and trans
Page 17 and 18: 3. The April 2 interview. On April
Page 19 and 20: 1. There was concern about the fact
Page 21 and 22: On May 1, Moker and Lackie returned
Page 23 and 24: of the incident. (RT 1127.) There w
Page 25 and 26: With respect to inconsistencies in
Page 27 and 28: 1406.) Her life was gone; she had n
Page 29 and 30: intentional infliction. (RT 3005; C
Page 31 and 32: "[T]he 'official proceeding' privil
Page 33 and 34: (See also, Flynn v. Higham (1983) 1
Page 35 and 36: the judgment must be reversed. It s
Page 37 and 38: Plaintiffs theory of negligence was
Page 39 and 40: murderer). As the course of the tri
Page 41 and 42: plaintiff asked for and was denied
Page 43 and 44: 5. Foreseeability. Even if it was a
Page 45 and 46: That is, the criminal investigation
Page 47 and 48: B. There Is No Substantial Evidence
Page 49 and 50: 1200.) Significantly, it is only th
Page 51 and 52: IV. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED
Page 53 and 54: p. 85, section 821.6 barred an acti
Page 55 and 56:
to employ police and send them to t
Page 57 and 58:
V. THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE REVERSED
show all

Amylou R. v. County of Riverside Appellant's Opening Brief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?