Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Legislation (1097)
- Environmental Law (717)
- Legal Education (525)
- Criminal Law (516)
- International Law (311)
-
- Property Law and Real Estate (273)
- Water Law (214)
- Other Law (210)
- Labor and Employment Law (193)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (178)
- Intellectual Property Law (169)
- Constitutional Law (166)
- Judges (164)
- Family Law (120)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (113)
- Law and Gender (113)
- Juvenile Law (108)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (100)
- Criminal Procedure (98)
- Torts (97)
- Health Law and Policy (90)
- Civil Law (75)
- Land Use Law (68)
- State and Local Government Law (65)
- Taxation-State and Local (64)
- Immigration Law (62)
- Human Rights Law (57)
- Tax Law (51)
- Civil Procedure (45)
- Keyword
-
- Ninth Circuit Survey (100)
- Fraud (51)
- United States (48)
- EPA (45)
- CERCLA (43)
-
- Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (39)
- Environmental Justice (38)
- Golden Gate University School of Law Environmental Law and Justice Clinic (38)
- Greenaction (38)
- Law library (38)
- Naval radiological defense laboratory (38)
- Operation crossroads (38)
- Radiological (38)
- Tetra Tech (38)
- Superfund (37)
- Navy (36)
- CalFed Bay-Delta Program (33)
- Environmental justice (33)
- Criminal procedure (30)
- Telecom (29)
- Evidence (28)
- AIDS (27)
- Sex discrimination (27)
- International law (26)
- Right of privacy (26)
- California (25)
- Employment discrimination (25)
- Environmental Law Journal (25)
- Freedom of speech (25)
- Climate change (24)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Golden Gate University Law Review (1154)
- Publications (870)
- California Assembly (659)
- California Agencies (481)
- Jesse Carter Opinions (439)
-
- California Senate (244)
- Caveat (219)
- Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law (199)
- Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal (158)
- California Joint Committees (124)
- Press Releases (116)
- GGU Law Review Blog (115)
- Theses and Dissertations (71)
- Cal Law Trends and Developments (65)
- Commencement (64)
- Law School Bulletins & Prospectus (62)
- Juvenile Justice Bulletin (57)
- Newsletters (56)
- Alumni News (47)
- National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (47)
- The Jesse Carter Collection (43)
- Fulbright Symposium (42)
- Environmental Law and Justice Clinic - Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Documents (38)
- Federal Documents (35)
- Environmental Law and Justice Clinic (32)
- Intellectual Property Law (32)
- National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs (29)
- Student Handbooks (27)
- Articles About Faculty (26)
- Articles About GGU Law (21)
- Publication Type
Articles 5701 - 5730 of 5855
Full-Text Articles in Law
Providence Baptist Church V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Providence Baptist Church V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Nonprofit church corporation and pastors' petition for prohibition against court was denied because the court was entitled to determine whether the church properly terminated the pastor based on a director of corporation analogy.
Hirschman V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hirschman V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
County civil service employees were not entitled to a declaration that a county oath requirement was invalid because the field of loyalty oath requirements for all county employees was not preempted by statute until adoption of the Levering Act.
Eads V. Marks, Jesse W. Carter
Eads V. Marks, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Family that alleged injury to minor was caused by dairy's breach of agreement to place milk bottles only in family's refrigerator, out of reach of the minor, should have been allowed to amend their complaint to state a cause of action in tort.
Ward V. Jones [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Ward V. Jones [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The dismissal, after a general demurrer was sustained, of a plaintiff's action for wrongful death was proper where the plaintiff failed to present a verified claim for damages in writing and file the claim with the clerk of the municipality.
Bisno V. Leonard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Bisno V. Leonard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
No abstract provided.
Hanchett V. Lehman [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hanchett V. Lehman [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Denial of writ of mandate to compel a county to reinstate permanent civil service employees in their jobs after they were discharged for refusing to sign an oath and affidavit, stating which political organizations that they belonged to was proper.
Horowitz V. Conlan [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Horowitz V. Conlan [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
No abstract provided.
Bowen V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Bowen V. County Of Los Angeles [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A former county civil service employee was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the county to reinstate her employment because she refused to execute the loyalty oath that was required of county employees.
Fraser V. Regents Of University Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Fraser V. Regents Of University Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A former university instructor was not entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the Regents of the University of California to reinstate him because he refused to take an oath of loyalty that was required of teachers as a condition of employment.
Tolman V. Underhill [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Tolman V. Underhill [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In California, university personnel could not have properly been required to execute any other oath or declaration relating to loyalty than that prescribed for all state employees.
Pockman V. Leonard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Pockman V. Leonard [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
College had to pay part, but not all, of professor's salary, which was withheld after he failed to execute oath, because the oath did not violate California's Constitution, but 30 day grace period applied to law, for which he was entitled to payment.
Lawrence Barker, Inc. V. Briggs, Jesse W. Carter
Lawrence Barker, Inc. V. Briggs, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Judgment in favor of landlord was improper because trial court abused its discretion in denying tenant declaratory relief and erred when it failed to expressly declare parties' rights and refused to allow evidence in support of tenant's counterclaim.
Flores V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Flores V. Brown [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Damages for wrongful death were the sum of those suffered by each heir or parent and when the heirs were not husband and wife, the negligence of one was not imputed to the others.
Hamasaki V. Flotho [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hamasaki V. Flotho [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The trial court was not required to order a new trial on damage issues alone where damages awarded in a personal injury suit against a driver, the car's owner, and the driver's employer were so low that the jury had clearly compromised on liability.
Feinstein V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Feinstein V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A disbarred attorney who did not conclusively establish his rehabilitation and present good moral character was not reinstated to the practice of law.
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Employee who was injured when he dove into stream located near employer's premises on his free time was not entitled to compensation award under California's Workmen's Compensation Act because his injuries were not incurred in course of employment.
Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Fireman's Fund Indem. Co. V. Industrial Acci. Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The commission improperly awarded the injured employee compensation because her injury occurred while walking as an off-duty diversion of her own free choice. There was no causal connection between the injury and the employment.
Thomas V. California Employment Stabilization Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Thomas V. California Employment Stabilization Com. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Former employees who were terminated after refusing to cross a picket line despite several requests were statutorily unqualified for unemployment benefits because their lack of employment was due to a labor dispute.
Cary V. Wentzel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Cary V. Wentzel [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where a jury verdict was the result of compromise, there had been no acceptable determination of liability, the driver was entitled to a new trial on that issue, and an order limiting a new trial to the issue of damages was an abuse of discretion.
Leipert V. Honold [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Leipert V. Honold [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Partial new trial on damages was improperly ordered as issue of liability was very close and record evidence suggested that award was the result of a compromise, and thus, it would have been unjust to have a new trial limited to issue of damages.
Rose V. Melody Lane Of Wilshire [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Rose V. Melody Lane Of Wilshire [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Grant of a new trial in favor of a customer on issue of damages, in his action to recover for personal injuries sustained in the owner's establishment, was improper. The nominal award by the jury indicated indecision as to owner's res ipsa liability.
Norris V. Pacific Indem. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Norris V. Pacific Indem. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where a permittee had neither express nor implied permission for the delegation of the use of the car to another, the driver was not protected by an omnibus clause covering permittees and was therefore not entitled to coverage under the policy.
Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur as well as the conflicting presumption of due care that arose if defendant driver was truly unable to recall the cause of the accident.
Mcmahon V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Mcmahon V. State Bar Of California [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
An attorney who misinformed a court about the existence of a will violated the disciplinary rules even if the dispositive provisions of the will were invalid because the will could have validly provided for the appointment of an executor.
Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The doctrine of last clear chance rarely applied in cases involving high speed collisions between vehicles because it was extremely difficult to determine which party, if any, had a meaningful last clear chance to avoid an accident.
Handler V. Board Of Supervisors, Jesse W. Carter
Handler V. Board Of Supervisors, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A county was authorized by statute to oppose a commuter railroad's application for a passenger-fare rate increase and to hire an attorney to represent the county in opposing the rate increase.
Fascination, Inc. V. Hoover, Jesse W. Carter
Fascination, Inc. V. Hoover, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The right to engage in business in the city for whom the officials worked could not be arbitrarily denied by the city's officials without a hearing or an opportunity to present the merits of the application.
People V. Evans, Jesse W. Carter
People V. Evans, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A new trial was ordered following a conviction for lewd conduct with a child. It was not in accord with principles of justice and fair play to show the child defendant's picture and then take her into a room where defendant was the only occupant.
Green V. Gordon [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Green V. Gordon [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Commutation of sentence was in nature of a favor and could be granted upon conditions. Therefore, it was within governor's power to commute death sentence to life without parole even though no such statutory penalty existed for murder conviction.
People V. Gilliam [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
People V. Gilliam [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Defendant's conviction of first degree murder and sentence of the death penalty were proper because there was no provocation for his conduct, and the circumstances showed an abandoned and malignant heart together with a consciousness of guilt.