Suit against the Church of the Divine Light Free Essay Example, 3250 words

The term "false imprisonment" is misleading in that it does not necessarily refer to confinement within a prison. Ware v. Dunn, 80 Cal. App. 2d 936, 183 P. 2d 128 (2d Dist. 1947). The term is broadly construed to mean detention of the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant, Stallings v. Foster, 119 Cal. App. 2d 614, 259 P. 2d 1006 (3d Dist. 1953), either in prison Gogue v. MacDonald, 35 Cal. 2d 482, 218 P. 2d 542, 21 A. L.R. 2d 639 (1950) (county jail); Collins v. Owens, 77 Cal. App. 2d 713, 176 P. 2d 372 (1st Dist. 1947) (incarceration in "drunk" cell) or in any place temporarily used for the purpose of confinement. Vandiveer v. Charters, 110 Cal. App. 347, 294 P. 440 (3d Dist. 1930). Thus, an action may be predicated on detention or confinement in a juvenile home McAlmond v. Trippel, 93 Cal. App. 584, 269 P. 937 (3d Dist. 1928) (rejecting contention that there can be no false imprisonment when detention is had under juvenile court laws and by juvenile court officers) or in a mental institution Collins v. We will write a custom essay sample on Suit against the Church of the Divine Light or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page Raphael Weill Co., 90 Cal. App. 2d 461, 203 P. 2d 564 (1st Dist. 1949), or even the plaintiff's own home. Schanafelt v. Seaboard Finance Co. , 108 Cal. App. 2d 420, 239 P. 2d 42 (2d Dist. 1951). The term "false imprisonment" is misleading in that it does not necessarily refer to confinement within a prison. Ware v. Dunn, 80 Cal. App. 2d 936, 183 P. 2d 128 (2d Dist. 1947). The term is broadly construed to mean detention of the plaintiff within boundaries fixed by the defendant, Stallings v. Foster, 119 Cal. App. 2d 614, 259 P. 2d 1006 (3d Dist. 1953), either in prison Gogue v. MacDonald, 35 Cal. 2d 482, 218 P. 2d 542, 21 A. L.R. 2d 639 (1950) (county jail); Collins v. Owens, 77 Cal. App. 2d 713, 176 P. 2d 372 (1st Dist. 1947) (incarceration in "drunk" cell) or in any place temporarily used for the purpose of confinement. Vandiveer v. Charters, 110 Cal. App. 347, 294 P. 440 (3d Dist. 1930). Thus, an action may be predicated on detention or confinement in a juvenile home McAlmond v. Trippel, 93 Cal. App. 584, 269 P. 937 (3d Dist. 1928) (rejecting contention that there can be no false imprisonment when detention is had under juvenile court laws and by juvenile court officers) or in a mental institution Collins v. Jones, 131 Cal. App. 747, 22 P. 2d 39 (2d Dist. 1933) (overruled in part on other grounds by, Whaley v. Kirby, 208 Cal. App. 2d 232, 25 Cal. Rptr. 50 (4th Dist. 1962)), or hospital. Parker v. Los Angeles County, 62 Cal. App. 2d 130, 144 P. 2d 70 (2d Dist. 1943). So also, the place of confinement may be the office of an employer, Vandiveer v. Charters, 110 Cal. App. 347, 294 P. 440 (3d Dist. 1930); Moffatt v. Buffums' Inc. , 21 Cal. App. 2d 371, 69 P. 2d 424 (2d Dist. 1937), a department store, Hanna v. Raphael Weill Co., 90 Cal. App. 2d 461, 203 P. 2d 564 (1st Dist. 1949), or even the plaintiff's own home. Schanafelt v. Seaboard Finance Co. , 108 Cal. App. 2d 420, 239 P. 2d 42 (2d Dist. 1951). False imprisonment is defin ed by the California Penal Code as the unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another. Pen. Code, 236. The tort of false imprisonment is identical to the crime of false imprisonment, as defined under the Penal Code. Fermino v. Fedco, Inc. , 7 Cal. 4th 701, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 18, 872 P. 2d 559, 59 Cal. Comp. Cas. (MB) 296, 9 I. E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1132 (1994).