Scannell v. County of Riverside

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a California public employer is responsible for the tort of false imprisonment based on the conduct of an employee acting within the course and scope of his employment
• noting that a California public employer is responsible for the tort of false imprisonment based on the conduct of an employee acting within the course and scope of his employment
• noting that a California public employer is responsible for the tort of false 6 imprisonment based on the conduct of an employee acting within eh course and scope of 7 his or her employment
• tolling cause of action for § 911.2 purposes from date of plaintiffs release from custody
• defendant’s motion to strike exemplary damages should have been granted when plaintiff had “not pleaded that acts of employees of defendant corporation were done with the knowledge or under the express direction or ratification of an officer, director or managing agent of the corporation.”
• “[E]ven though the arrest and imprisonment may have been malicious and constituted malicious prosecution, the conduct did not amount to false imprisonment because the arrest was accomplished by a legal warrant and thus under due form of law and color of authority.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).