Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Connelly v. State of California
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 21, 1970No. Civ. 1057Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
DAVID, J. pro tem.,* Concurring and Dissenting.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Upon appeal, the basic question is whether the second amended complaint before the trial court states a cause of action, or whether any can be stated, under the applicable law. Independently of the declarations of immunity stated in Government Code sections 815, 818.8, 820.2 and 822.2, and Water Code section 6028, I conclude there is no legal cause of action stated. The deficiencies in the second amended complaint rest in the applicable law, and not in factual deficiencies which might be…
2Cases cited121 opinions
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Bradley v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Dalehite v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Chisholm v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1793
116 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.