36 Cited authorities

City of Stockton v. Superior Court
42 Cal.4th 730 (Cal. 2007) Cited 648 times
Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"
Del Real v. City of Riverside
95 Cal.App.4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 436 times
Recognizing the principle that an "appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error"
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
12 Cal.3d 447 (Cal. 1974) Cited 708 times
Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed
Munoz v. State of California
33 Cal.App.4th 1767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) Cited 316 times
Finding no substantial compliance with claim presentation requirement where an application for leave to file a late claim was sent to California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi rather than the State Board of Control
Gikas v. Zolin
6 Cal.4th 841 (Cal. 1993) Cited 259 times
Holding the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding
Nestle v. City of Santa Monica
6 Cal.3d 920 (Cal. 1972) Cited 466 times
In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.
John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist.
48 Cal.3d 438 (Cal. 1989) Cited 244 times
Holding that individual instances of sexual harassment of students by teachers does not impute liability to the school districts under the doctrine of respondeat superior
California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
11 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1995) Cited 181 times 1 Legal Analyses
Detailing amendment history
Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist.
147 Cal.App.3d 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) Cited 210 times
Holding that the general rule that the CTCA does not apply to claims for equitable relief "has no application . . . where a petition for extraordinary relief is merely incidental or ancillary to a prayer for damages," and the "primary purpose of claims is pecuniary in nature"
Connelly v. County of Fresno
146 Cal.App.4th 29 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 74 times
Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA

DiCAMPLI-MINTZ v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (To be called and continued to the October 2012 calendar.)

36 Cited authorities

Holding that contract claims are subject to the CTCA's presentment requirement; adding that the CTCA is better referred to as the Government Claims Act "to reduce confusion"

Recognizing the principle that an "appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error"

Holding that government claims procedures are mandatory and failure to file the required claim means the action must be dismissed

Finding no substantial compliance with claim presentation requirement where an application for leave to file a late claim was sent to California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi rather than the State Board of Control

Holding the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding

In Nestle we held, inter alia, that a nuisance action based on airport noise was improperly dismissed on the basis of government immunity, and suggested that the plaintiffs on remand might be able to demonstrate a continuing nuisance.

Holding that individual instances of sexual harassment of students by teachers does not impute liability to the school districts under the doctrine of respondeat superior

Detailing amendment history

Holding that the general rule that the CTCA does not apply to claims for equitable relief "has no application . . . where a petition for extraordinary relief is merely incidental or ancillary to a prayer for damages," and the "primary purpose of claims is pecuniary in nature"

Discussing substantial compliance under the CGCA