Peter Goldman Levy v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• utilizing legislative intent to determine that immunity for state entities is not a jurisdictional bar, but an affirmative defense, for a tort liability statute that is not equivalent to the GLA
• “the absolute litigation privilege . . . is an 17 affirmative defense subject to principles of forfeiture and waiver”
• “Though 11 section[] . . . 820.2 expressly immunize[s] only the employee, if the employee is immune, so too is 12 the [public entity].”
• “The analysis in Quigley dictates that the Government Claims Act 23 immunities on which Defendants rely are defenses to liability, not immunities from suit.”
• “California’s superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which means they are generally empowered to resolve the legal disputes that are brought to them.” (citing Cal. Const., art. VI, §§ 1, 10)
• mentioning § 845.6 as an affirmative defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).