Henriksen v. City of Rialto
California Court of Appeal
1DissentTimlin, J.
I respectfully dissent.
I
Introduction
The issue here is simple: did Rialto, as the moving party on a motion for summary judgment (motion) and despite the contents of Henriksen’s opposition to that motion, establish, as a matter of law, that Henriksen was not *1623acting within the scope of his employment by Rialto at the time Henriksen’s service pistol discharged and the round hit Masotto, so as to defeat Henriksen’s cross-complaint for indemnification, apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and breach of contract against Rialto?
In my opinion, Rialto did not. Henriksen’s opposition to the motion…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mary M. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Rodgers v. Kemper Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Sprague v. Equifax, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1985
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.