Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Gonzales: Protecting Against The “Tyranny Of Totalitarianism”, Rachel A. Van Cleave
Publications
People v. Gonzales involved an issue that continues to divide lawyers, judges, scholars, politicians, as well as the general public: how best to protect individuals from law enforcement conduct that violates constitutional protections? This question is particularly controversial in the context of a criminal case, since the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence often results in the alleged criminal going free. In Gonzales, the California Supreme Court was asked to adopt the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of constitutional rights. A majority of California Supreme Court justices answered this in the negative. Justice Carter disagreed, and his analysis provided …
Justice Carter’S Dissent In People V. Crooker: An Early Step Towards Miranda Warnings And The Expansion Of The Fifth Amendment To Pre-Trial Confessions, Helen Y. Chang
Publications
By the middle of the 20th century, police interrogation of criminal suspects had developed into a fine art designed to extract confessions. The use of the “third degree,” otherwise known as the infliction of physical or mental suffering, was not uncommon. “[T]he most frequently utilized interrogation techniques have involved mental and psychological stratagems—trickery, deceit, deception, cajolery, subterfuge, chicanery, wheedling, false pretenses of sympathy, and various other artifices and ploys.” As the United States Supreme Court noted in its famous Miranda v. Arizona decision, this type of police interrogation involved “inherent compulsion,” was “inherently coercive,” “exact[ed] a heavy toll on individual …
Justice Jesse Carter’S Passionate Defense Of Workers’ Rights: Challenging The Majority’S “Legal Legerdemain”, Marci Seville
Justice Jesse Carter’S Passionate Defense Of Workers’ Rights: Challenging The Majority’S “Legal Legerdemain”, Marci Seville
Publications
In two 1953 decisions, Mercer-Fraser Company v. Industrial Accident Commission and Hawaiian Pineapple Company Ltd v. Industrial Accident Commission, the California Supreme Court considered the proper interpretation of Labor Code section 4553, a provision in the workers’ compensation system that allows for an additional monetary award when an employee is injured because of an employer’s “serious and willful misconduct.” The Court gave a restrictive reading to the Labor Code and annulled decisions of the California Industrial Accident Commission that had found serious and willful misconduct by the respective employers. In doing so, the Court departed from its earlier and more …
Justice Carter, Contributory Negligence And Wrongful Death: A Call To Get Rid Of A “Bad Law With Bad Results”, Michael A. Zamperini
Justice Carter, Contributory Negligence And Wrongful Death: A Call To Get Rid Of A “Bad Law With Bad Results”, Michael A. Zamperini
Publications
No abstract provided.
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. V. The Board Of Education Of The San Francisco Unified School District: Denying Hecklers The Right To Veto Unpopular Speech, David Zizmor, Clifford Rechtschaffen
Publications
Payroll Guarantee Association, Inc. v. The Board of Education of the San Francisco Unified School District dealt with a difficult balancing question in First Amendment jurisprudence: to what degree are the rights of a speaker espousing unpopular views protected when such speech engenders disruptive protests— protests which themselves constitute a form of speech? Are the free speech rights of the unpopular speaker paramount? Do opponents have the right to protest such speech to the point at which the protests are so disturbing that the speech cannot go forward, in effect giving opponents a “heckler’s veto?”
Kurlan V. Cbs: Justice Carter’S Prescient Dissent— A Glimpse Into The Future Of Copyright Protection In The Entertainment Industry, Marc H. Greenberg
Kurlan V. Cbs: Justice Carter’S Prescient Dissent— A Glimpse Into The Future Of Copyright Protection In The Entertainment Industry, Marc H. Greenberg
Publications
A scholar of intellectual property law quickly learns that complacency, and the privilege of working in a largely static and unchanging body of law, is not a benefit available to those who labor in this endlessly fascinating but fast-paced and always changing field. The 1953 decision of the California Supreme Court in Kurlan v. CBS (hereinafter “Kurlan”), provides yet another example of this principle. Many of the assumptions found in the majority decision have long been abandoned or substantially revised. Justice Carter’s dissent, however, contains the seeds of those revisions, and is prescient in its understanding of the need to: …
The Plight Of The Derivative Plaintiff: Justice Carter’S Dissent In Hogan V. Ingold, Michele Benedetto Neitz
The Plight Of The Derivative Plaintiff: Justice Carter’S Dissent In Hogan V. Ingold, Michele Benedetto Neitz
Publications
Written over fifty years ago, Justice Carter’s Hogan dissent championed the rights of individuals with corporate investments to sue dishonest corporate officials through derivative lawsuits. His emphasis on justice and fairness for shareholders established Justice Carter as a visionary in the area of corporate ethics. Unfortunately, as the scandals of the modern era have demonstrated, many of Justice Carter’s concerns for shareholders remain justified.
Carter’S Dissent In Simpson V. City Of Los Angeles: A Precursor To The Animal Rights Movement, Janice E. Kosel
Carter’S Dissent In Simpson V. City Of Los Angeles: A Precursor To The Animal Rights Movement, Janice E. Kosel
Publications
In Simpson v. City of Los Angeles, resident taxpayers who owned licensed dogs who had recently gone astray sought to restrain the enforcement of a city ordinance. Los Angeles Municipal Code section 53.11 (h) allowed the city to surrender for medical research dogs that had been impounded for a period of at least five days. Subsection (h) of the ordinance did not contain any provision for notice to the owner of the impounded dog. As a result, plaintiffs contended that the ordinance was invalid because it constituted an unlawful taking of private property.
Our State's Highest Tribunal: The Court And The Justices, Edward F. O'Day
Our State's Highest Tribunal: The Court And The Justices, Edward F. O'Day
The Jesse Carter Collection
Ninth article in a series by The Recorder on the California State Supreme Court justices, on Associate Justice Jesse W. Carter.