Law Commons^™

Whose Rights Matter More—Police Privacy Or A Defendant’S Right To A Fair Trial?, Laurie L. Levenson

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The function of the prosecutor under the federal Constitution is not to tack as many skins of victims as possible to the wall. His function is to vindicate the right of the people as expressed in the laws and give those accused of crime a fair trial.

– William O. Douglas

Clerking For Roger J. Traynor, Roland E. Brandel, James E. Krier

Book Chapters

Justice Roger J. Traynor was born in Utah in 19001 the son of a miner and drayman. He left after high school to undertake undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of California, Berkeley, eventually earning (simultaneously) a Ph.D. in political science and a law degree from Boalt Hall, the university's law school. He practiced law for just a few months, then returned to the university to teach in its political science department. A year later, in 19301 he joined the law faculty, where he worked until his appointment to the California Supreme Court in 1940. He became chief justice …

Foreword, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Overdue Justice: People V. Valenzuela And The Path Toward Gang Prosecution Reform, Ryan Nelson

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

People V. Buza: A Step In The Wrong Direction, Emily R. Pincin

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Re Cook And The Franklin Proceeding: New Door, Same Dilapidated House, Christopher Hawthorne, Marisa Sacks

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The California Supreme Court’s decision in In re Cook was supposed to bring about a sea change in the way trial courts conduct Franklin mitigation hearings for youthful offenders. In fact, while Cook changed the procedure for initiating a post-conviction Franklin proceeding, little else has changed, including the lack of agreement among attorneys concerning best practices in these proceedings, and a less than less-than-enthusiastic response from the criminal defense bar. Absent any guidance from higher courts, the Franklin proceeding is limited by the personal and institutional energies and preferences of judges, prosecutors, public defenders and private defense counsel. The authors …

California's Child Abuse Dependency Hearsay Exception In In Re I.C., Rachel Monas

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Losses Are Too Big: Evaluating The Economic Loss Doctrine In California, John T. Nockleby

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The pure economic loss doctrine is a rule developed by common law courts to shield a defendant from exposure to negligence suits where a party has not suffered physical injury or property damage, and the only losses someone suffers are economic in nature—such as lost profits or wages. Most recently, the California Supreme Court evaluated whether the doctrine should be applied in a case involving a massive environmental disaster, holding that the doctrine shielded a utility from liability for the economic losses to neighboring businesses caused by its putative negligence.

In October of 2015, a huge underground natural gas storage …

Making Constitutional Sense: A Modal Approach To California's Proposition 66, Alan Romero

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

For years, the California Supreme Court has adopted a deferential posture when reviewing state constitutional challenges to a ballot initiative. The decision in Briggs v. Brown underscored the degree to which courts are willing to avoid striking down ballot initiatives on constitutional grounds, such as by broadly construing the initiative’s language to avoid constitutional problems. In construing the language of Proposition 66 to avoid separation of powers problems, however, Briggs effectively re-interpreted central pillars of Proposition 66 in ways rendering it unrecognizable to Californians who cast votes for and against the initiative. Such recasting of ballot initiatives raises fundamental jurisprudential …

Partisan Voting On The California Supreme Court, Mark P. Gergen, David A. Carrillo, Benjamin M. Chen, Kevin M. Quinn

Faculty Articles

When did ideology become the major fault line of the California Supreme Court? To answer this question, we use a two-parameter item response theory (IRT) model to identify voting patterns in non-unanimous decisions by California Supreme Court justices from 1910 to 2011. The model shows that voting on the court became polarized on recognizably partisan lines beginning in the mid-1900s. Justices usually did not vote in a pattern that matched their political reputations and party affiliation during the first half of the century. This began to change in the 1950s. After 1959 the dominant voting pattern is partisan and closely …

Misdemeanors For All Purposes? Interpreting Proposition 47’S Ameliorative Scope In A New Era Of Criminal Justice Reform, Kayla Burchuk

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified seven low-level felonies to misdemeanors, demonstrating voters’ striking rejection of California’s historically punitive sentencing policies. This Note examines the recent wave of California Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting Proposition 47 by exploring the court’s varied readings of the initiative’s ballot materials and statutory text. While the court has liberally construed relief for affected property crimes, it has responded ambivalently in more controversial areas such as drug offenses, mandatory parole periods, and automatic resentencing. This variation reveals ideological tensions between the goal of expanding ameliorative benefits to low-level offenders and anxiety regarding public safety. This Note analyzes …

Protecting The Little Guys: How To Prevent The California Supreme Court’S New “Abc” Test From Stunting Cash-Strapped Startups, Braden Seibert

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

California startups and independent contractors are in desperate need of a lifeline before they are gone for good. This state has long favored the employee over the employer, but the California Supreme Court’s new “ABC” test tips the scales even further by making it practically impossible for startups to compensate their workers. As a remedy, I propose exemptions to the test for sophisticated contractors who do not need the state’s protection, certified owners who have demonstrated fair play, and small businesses which are still in the developmental stages. Though the Court based its decision largely on a policy of protecting …

Of Great Use And Interest: Constitutional Governance And Judicial Power- The History Of The California Supreme Court, Donald Warner

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Richards Ii Takes A Bite Out Of Forensic Science, Michelle Cornell-Davis

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Delusive Exactness In California: Redefining The Claim, Kami Laberge

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

My view of primary right may differ from yours, and we have no common ground, only the statement of our opposing views.

Prosecutorial Ventriloquism: People V. Tom And The Substantive Use Of Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence To Infer Consciousness Of Guilt, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Falcon Cannot Hear The Falconer: How California's Initiative Process Is Creating An Untenable Constitution, Rudy Klapper

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Californians have always cherished the idea that ultimate political power lies in the people, an idea best represented by the state’s hugely influential initiative process. Today, however, that initiative power threatens to spiral out of control, thanks in large part to the California Supreme Court’s inability to construe appropriate limits on it. This has created an unbalanced government where the rights of minorities are easily circumscribed and the financial and political infrastructure of the state is in danger of buckling under the combined weight of dozens of initiatives. This Article argues that the judiciary’s haphazard interpretation of various rules and …

Storming The Castle: Fernandez V. California And The Waning Warrant Requirement, Joshua Bornstein

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Hollingsworth: Standing In Initiative Cases, Karl Manheim, John S. Caragozian, Donald Warner

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the “Official Proponents” of California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion held that initiative sponsors lack Article III standing to defend their ballot measures even when state officials refuse to defend against constitutional challenges. As a result, Hollingsworth provides state officers with the ability to overrule laws that were intended to bypass the government establishment—in effect, an “executive veto” of popularly-enacted initiatives.

The Article examines this new “executive veto” in depth. It places Hollingsworth in context, discussing the initiative process …

Private Parties And The Ffdca: How Creative Litigants Have Circumvented Section 310 And Undermined The Nlea’S Express Preemption Amendments, Joe Dages

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Payability” As The Logical Corollary To “Collectibility” In Legal Malpractice, Daniel D. Tostrud

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The collectibility requirement as part of the legal malpractice plaintiff’s affirmative case is well-established and regarded by most courts as a critical part of the plaintiff’s proof of proximate causation. Conversely, where the legal malpractice plaintiff was the defendant in the underlying lawsuit, to be successful in the malpractice suit, the plaintiff must prove that it had a meritorious defense that would have made a difference to the outcome of the case had the lawyer properly asserted and pursued the defense. Prompted by the conflicting opinions of two federal courts on this issue, courts have begun to discuss whether the …

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: December 1980 - February 1981, Drago C. Baric, William C. Bollard

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Molien V. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals: Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress, Michael P. Messina

Pepperdine Law Review

In Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Supreme Court recognized that the interest in freedom from negligent infliction of mental distress is a protectable interest, and that an accompanying physical injury need not exist in order to recover damages. The author presents a discussion of the history and policies behind the right to recover from negligently inflicted emotional distress. The author also discusses and analyzes the court's opinion in Molien and agrees with the court that the fears of opening the floodgate of litigation which before Molien precluded recovery, was arbitrary. Finally, the author concludes that the holding is …

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: July-November 1980, Craig H. Millet, Tina I. Waine

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: July 1981-December 1981, Ronald M. Sorenson, Kevin D. Smith, Janet Rappaport

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey - A Review Of Decisions: June 1981-August 1981, Craig H. Millet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: March - May 1981, Stephen H. Doorlag

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: July 1982-November 1982, Sheldon J. Fleming, Kevin D. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: January 1982 - June 1982, Sheldon J. Fleming, Kevin D. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The California Supreme Court Survey: A Review Of Decisions: March 1983-December 1983 , Mark A. Ozzello

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.