DOCSLIB.ORG

CSCHS Newsletter Spring/Summer 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The California Supreme Court Historical Society newsletter · s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 9 Historic Gathering for Oral Histories Four former justices of the California Supreme Court are honored by the Society on the completion of their oral histories, in the presence of the current members of the Court (full story on pages 2–3). Seated, left to Right: former Associate Justices John A. Arguelles, Edward A. Panelli, former Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas, and former Associate Justice Armand Arabian. Standing, left to Right: Associate Justices Carlos R. Moreno, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Joyce L. Kennard, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justices Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, and Carol A. Corrigan. Photo by Greg Verville Historic Gathering for Oral Histories Books by CSCHS Members ��� ��� ��� ��� 29 Jake Dear ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 2 Member News ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 30 Civil and Uncivil Rights in California: The Early Legal History t a b l e o f c o n t e n t s Panel Presentations ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 4 Membership Donors 2008–2009 ��� ��� ��� 31 Historic Gathering for Oral Histories By Jake Dear Chief Supervising Attorney, California Supreme Court our former members of the California Supreme said the Chief Justice. “Over a period of many years, oral FCourt were honored by the Society and the current history interviews have been conducted of Chief Jus- justices of the Court at a ceremony celebrating the com- tice Gibson, as well as Justices Carter, Mosk, Newman, pletion of the retired justices’ oral histories. Immedi- Broussard, Reynoso, and Grodin. Through these under- ately following the Court’s April 7, 2009, session in Los takings, we have literally preserved the living history Angeles, the Court joined with Society board members of the Court and its members. To this list, we are very and special guests for the presentation to each retired pleased to add today the oral histories of Chief Justice justice of a bound copy of his own oral history. Malcolm M. Lucas, Justice Edward A. Panelli, Justice John Society President David McFadden opened the pro- A. Arguelles, and Justice Armand Arabian. ceedings and welcomed the distinguished participants. “I want to express my deep thanks to each of you He introduced Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who for agreeing to participate in the oral history process. praised the Society’s involvement in the oral history I also wish to express my personal thanks to Society project. board member Professor Harry N. Scheiber of Boalt “The California Supreme Court Historical Society Hall, and to oral historian Laura McCreery of the Insti- funds a number of worthy causes and programs, but tute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, who con- none is more important than our oral history program,” ducted all of these interviews.” Scheiber has overseen 2 s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 9 · cschs newsletter all of the oral history projects of the Society and is cred- The honorees, their families and friends, together ited by McCreery for providing the “essential scholarly with the current justices and Society board members, guidance.” had the opportunity to mingle at the reception follow- “Finally,” concluded the Chief Justice, “I want to ing the ceremony. Board member Doug Littlefield was comment briefly about some research that shows in a in charge of invitations, reservations, and the reception, very favorable light the work of the Court under Chief with logistical support from Frederick Ohlrich, board Justice Lucas. A recent law review article published in member and Clerk of the California Supreme Court. the UC Davis Law Review reveals that not only has the A highlight of the occasion was the staging of a photo California Supreme Court been the leading and ‘most of 11 justices — the seven current members of the Court and followed’ state court in the nation since at least 1940, the four honorees. Board member Selma Moidel Smith, who but also shows that the court under Chief Justice Lucas, was in charge of photo arrangements, found a propitious in particular, narrowly edges out the next-most influ- moment to secure this historic image. She handed a note to ential era of the Court — that of Chief Justice Donald Chief Justice George just as former Chief Justice Lucas had Wright. Objective research like this confirms what many begun his remarks, explaining that she wished to obtain a of us subjectively know: in general, we have much to be group photo before one or more justices might need to leave proud of regarding the Court; and in particular, we are for other scheduled events. Chief Justice George rose and proud of the four justices we honor today, all of whom interrupted the former chief justice, saying, “there is only have made important contributions to the Court’s his- one person who can overrule two chief justices, and that’s tory and ongoing reputation.” our own Selma Smith.” The various justices were quickly The oral histories will eventually be available to the arranged — present justices standing, and former justices public at UC Berkeley’s Bancroft Library. (For a full sitting — and the photo was taken. A framed print now description and excerpts, see Laura McCreery’s article hangs in the corridor of the Court’s historic San Francisco in the Fall/Winter 2008 Newsletter.) headquarters near the chief justice’s chambers. ✯ Facing page, Clockwise from upper left Former Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas, Chief Justice Ronald George, President David McFadden and Professor Harry Scheiber Associate Justice Carol Corrigan and Board Member Joyce Cook Laura McCreery and Hon. Manuel Ramirez Michael Bidart and Ricardo Echeverria Oral history book of former Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas and (center photo) close-up of cover text Associate Justice Marvin Baxter, Mrs. Jane Baxter and former Associate Justice Edward Panelli Board Members Eric Joss and Daniel Grunfeld This page, Clockwise from Top Former Associate Justices Armand Arabian, John Arguelles and Edward Panelli, and Chief Justice Ronald George Associate Justice Ming Chin and Board Member Selma Moidel Smith Board Member Mitchell Keiter Board Members Frederick Ohlrich (Clerk of the Supreme Court) and Theodore Boutrous Board Member Molly Selvin All Photos by Greg Verville cschs newsletter · spring/summer 2 0 0 9 3 Civil and Uncivil Rights in California: The Early Legal History A Panel Presentation in Two Parts part i — january 22, 2009 California Judicial Center, San Francisco part ii — june 1, 2009 Los Angeles Times Building, Los Angeles David McFadden, President, California Supreme Court Historical Society Welcome (San Francisco & Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���5 Ronald M. George, Chief Justice of California Greetings and Introduction (San Francisco & Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���6 John F. Burns (San Francisco Moderator), Historian and Former State Archivist Overview of Early California’s Civil Rights Legacy ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���8 Jim Newton (Los Angeles Moderator), editor, los angeles times editorial pages Early California Prejudice and the Young Earl Warren ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���9 Panel Presentations Shirley Ann Moore, Professor, Sacramento State University African-Americans Fight Racism in Early California (San Francisco) ��� ��� ��� ��� 10 Joseph R. Grodin, Professor, UC Hastings College of the Law, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court (Ret.) California Supreme Court Cases on Civil Rights in the Early Years (San Francisco & Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 14 Charles J. McClain, Professor, UC Berkeley Race, Gender, and the Loyalty Oath in Early California (Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� 17 Jean Pfaelzer, Professor, University of Delaware The Chinese Rewrite the Letter of the Law (Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 22 Robert Chao Romero, Professor, UCLA Mexican and Chinese Rights in Early California (Los Angeles) ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� 26 (The speakers’ presentations have been edited for length.) the society thanks the following board members who arranged this educational program: Jake Dear, Ophelia Basgal, Hon. James Marchiano (Jan. 22, San Francisco) Robert Wolfe and Molly Selvin, (June 1, Los Angeles) Photos: William A. Porter (San Francisco), Greg Verville (Los angeles) s p r i n g / s u m m e r 2 0 0 9 · cschs newsletter Welcome David McFadden, President, California Supreme Court Historical Society ’d like to welcome you all to our Supreme Court justices. We’ve just Iprogram on the early years of finished a group of them that we civil and uncivil rights in Califor- funded. We funded the digitization nia. In the past we had programs project of a legislative history of at the State Bar Annual Meeting the 1878-79 Constitutional Conven- each year. We’re now changing the tion. The State Archives digitized venue. We’re having programs at these legislative history materials. different times and different places We also sponsor an annual writ- throughout the state. This is the ing competition for law students first of those, and it is being pre- and graduate students to write sented in two parts. The first, in on the California Supreme Court. San Francisco, is cosponsored by The oral histories themselves end the Bar Association of San Fran- up, some of them at least, in edited cisco, which is providing the MCLE form in California Legal History, credit. The second, in Los Angeles, which is our annual publication, is cosponsored by the Los Angeles our journal. In addition, we also Times, Southwestern Law School (which is providing have in the journal substantive articles on California the MCLE credit), Public Counsel, the Los Angeles legal history. An additional publication the association County Bar Association Appellate Courts Committee, has is our Newsletter, which in addition to having all and the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society. these news items, also has substantive legal historical In addition to putting on programs, the Historical articles. Society has been funding oral histories of California And now let us begin today’s program. ✯ January 22 program, Milton Marks Auditorium, California Judicial Center, San Francisco cschs newsletter · spring/summer 2 0 0 9 Greetings and Introduction Ronald M.
Recommended publications
  • Publication and Depublication of California Court of Appeal Opinions: Is the Eraser Mightier Than the Pencil? Gerald F

    Publication and Depublication of California Court of Appeal Opinions: Is the Eraser Mightier Than the Pencil? Gerald F

    Santa Clara Law Santa Clara Law Digital Commons Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-1-1992 Publication and Depublication of California Court of Appeal Opinions: Is the Eraser Mightier than the Pencil? Gerald F. Uelmen Santa Clara University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs Recommended Citation 26 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 1007 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PUBLICATION AND DEPUBLICATION OF CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL OPINIONS: IS THE ERASER MIGHTIER THAN THE PENCIL? Gerald F. Uelmen* What is a modem poet's fate? To write his thoughts upon a slate; The critic spits on what is done, Gives it a wipe-and all is gone.' I. INTRODUCTION During the first five years of the Lucas court,2 the California Supreme Court depublished3 586 opinions of the California Court of Ap- peal, declaring what the law of California was not.4 During the same five-year period, the California Supreme Court published a total of 555 of * Dean and Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law. B.A., 1962, Loyola Marymount University; J.D., 1965, LL.M., 1966, Georgetown University Law Center. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of Patrick Martucci, J.D., 1993, Santa Clara University School of Law, in the research for this Article.
  • Constitutional Governance and Judicial Power- the History of the California Supreme Court

    Constitutional Governance and Judicial Power- the History of the California Supreme Court

    The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 7 2017 Of Great Use and Interest: Constitutional Governance and Judicial Power- The History of the California Supreme Court Donald Warner Follow this and additional works at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, and the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Donald Warner, Of Great Use and Interest: Constitutional Governance and Judicial Power- The History of the California Supreme Court, 18 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 105 (2017). Available at: https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/appellatepracticeprocess/vol18/iss1/7 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 39639-aap_18-1 Sheet No. 57 Side A 11/15/2017 09:50:50 WARNEREXECEDIT (DO NOT DELETE) 10/24/2017 6:52 PM OF GREAT USE AND INTEREST: CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE AND JUDICIAL POWER—THE HISTORY OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT* Donald Warner** I. INTRODUCTION Published under the auspices of the California Supreme Court Historical Society, this is a substantial and valuable effort by six authors (one of whom is also the editor) to provide a comprehensive history of the first 160 years—from 1850 through 2010—of the California Supreme Court. This Court has been, at times, among the most influential of the state courts of last resort,1 which would make almost any treatment of its history interesting to at least a few readers.
  • Oral History Interview with Honorable Stanley Mosk

    Oral History Interview with Honorable Stanley Mosk

    California State Archives State Government Oral History Program Oral History Interview with HONORABLE STANLEY MOSK Justice of the California Supreme Court, 1964-present February 18, March 11, April 2, May 27, July 22, 1998 San Francisco, California By Germaine LaBerge Regional Oral History Office University of California, Berkeley RESTRICTIONS ON THIS INTERVIEW None. LITERARY RIGHTS AND QUOTATIONS This manuscript is hereby made available for research purposes only. No part of this manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the California State Archivist or the Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to: California State Archives 1020 0 Street, Room 130 Sacramento, California 95814 or Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California Berkeley, California 94720 The request should include information of the specific passages and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Honorable Stanley Mosk Oral History Interview, Conducted 1998 by Germaine LaBerge, Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley, for the California State Archives State Government Oral History Program. INTERVIEW HISTORY InterviewerlEditor: Germaine LaBerge Editor, University of California at Berkeley State Archives State Government Oral History Program B.A. Manhattanville College, Purchase, New York (History) M.A. Mary Grove College, Detroit, Michigan (Education) Member (inactive), California State Bar Interview Time and Place: February 18, 1998, Session of one and a half hours. March 11, 1998, Session of one and a half hours. April 2, 1998, Session of one hour. May 27, 1998, Session of one hour.
  • The California Recall History Is a Chronological Listing of Every

    The California Recall History Is a Chronological Listing of Every

    Complete List of Recall Attempts This is a chronological listing of every attempted recall of an elected state official in California. For the purposes of this history, a recall attempt is defined as a Notice of Intention to recall an official that is filed with the Secretary of State’s Office. 1913 Senator Marshall Black, 28th Senate District (Santa Clara County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Herbert C. Jones elected successor Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Failed to qualify for the ballot 1914 Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Edwin I. Wolfe elected successor Senator James C. Owens, 9th Senate District (Marin and Contra Costa counties) Qualified for the ballot, officer retained 1916 Assemblyman Frank Finley Merriam Failed to qualify for the ballot 1939 Governor Culbert L. Olson Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Citizens Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1940 Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1960 Governor Edmund G. Brown Filed by Roderick J. Wilson Failed to qualify for the ballot 1 Complete List of Recall Attempts 1965 Assemblyman William F. Stanton, 25th Assembly District (Santa Clara County) Filed by Jerome J. Ducote Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman John Burton, 20th Assembly District (San Francisco County) Filed by John Carney Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman Willie L.
  • Kyle A. Casazza

    Kyle A. Casazza

    Contact Kyle A. Casazza Partner Los Angeles +1.310.284.5677 [email protected] Kyle Casazza is a partner in the Litigation Department and a member of the Trial Strategies practice, where he focuses on all areas of complex commercial litigation. Kyle has significant plaintiff and defense-side experience in jury and bench trials in both state and federal courts. He has represented major companies in a wide array of industries, including oil and gas, financial services, media and entertainment, sports, technology and aerospace. Kyle has defended lawyers and law firms in connection with claims by both clients and non-clients arising from the performance of professional services. Kyle has worked on a number of civil and criminal antitrust matters, representing clients both in court and with the Department of Justice, most recently representing the Pac-12 Conference in antitrust litigation. He has also participated in internal accident investigations for aerospace companies. Kyle graduated from the USC Gould School of Law in May 2007, where he was awarded the Law Alumni Award (highest GPA in graduating class), the Alfred I. Mellenthin Award (highest GPA at the conclusion of the first and second years), the Judge Malcolm Lucas Award (highest GPA at the conclusion of the first year), and the Arthur Manella Scholarship (2005-06, 2006-07). While at USC, Kyle served as a senior submissions editor for the Southern California Law Review and as an Proskauer.com executive editor for a symposium issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy . Following graduation, Kyle clerked for the Honorable Sandra Segal Ikuta, U.S.
  • Public Comments on Supreme Court Proposal to Amend Cal. Rules Of

    Public Comments on Supreme Court Proposal to Amend Cal. Rules Of

    Public Comments on Supreme Court Proposal to Amend Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1115 All comments are verbatim unless indicated by an asterisk (*) or brackets ([]). List by alpha.. Commentator Position Comment 1. Appellate Defenders, Inc. A Appellate Defenders, Inc., submits these comments on the proposed amendments to California Rules of Elaine A. Alexander, Executive Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1115, which would change the rules on publication and citation of cases that Director; and Staff Attorneys have been granted review. ADI is the appointed counsel administrator for the Fourth Appellate District. It Loleena Ansari, Howard Cohen, Cheryl selects counsel for indigents on appeal in the district and oversees the representation provided. All counsel Geyerman, Helen Irza in its program have a stake in what constitutes citable and binding precedent. San Diego, CA Proposal that opinions remain citable after grant of review ADI supports the proposal that cases would retain their publication status after a grant of review. There is considerable value to having an opinion freely citable for its persuasive value and reasoning. It is a way of facilitating the best and most informed decision-making possible while lower courts and litigants and the public wait the year or two or more for the Supreme Court to resolve the underlying issue. Well thought out intermediate court decisions will help the Supreme Court reach a sound conclusion, as well. Of course, ADI agrees a case’s review-granted status must be noted prominently. On these points we seem to have the agreement of the other 49 states and the federal courts, according to the Invitation to Comment.
  • Contents SCHOOL of LAW

    Contents SCHOOL of LAW

    UCLA Contents SCHOOL OF LAW THE MAGAZINE OF THE SCHOOL OF LAW V OL. 25–NO. 1 FALL 2001 2 A MESSAGE FROM DEAN JONATHAN D. VARAT UCLA Magazine 2002 Regents of the University of California 4 THE JUDGES OF UCLA LAW UCLA School of Law 12 JUDGES AS ALTRUISTIC HIERARCHS Box 951476 Sidebars: Los Angles, California 90095-1476 Externships for Students in Judges’ Chambers Faculty who have clerked Jonathan D. Varat, Dean Kerry A. Bresnahan ‘89, Assistant Dean, External Affairs David Greenwald, Editorial Director for Marketing and 16 FACULTY Communications Services, UCLA Recent Publications by the Faculty Regina McConahay, Director of Communications, Kenneth Karst gives keynote address at the Jefferson Memorial Lecture UCLA School of Law William Rubenstein wins the Rutter Award Francisco A. Lopez, Manager of Publications and Graphic Grant Nelson honored with the University Distinguished Teaching Award Design Donna Colin, Director of Major Gifts Gary Blasi receives two awards Charles Cannon, Director of Annual and Special Giving Law Day Shines on Michael Asimow and Paul Bergman Kristine Werlinich, Director of Alumni Relations Teresa Estrada-Mullaney ‘77 and Laura Gomez conduct workshop on The Castle Press, Printer Institutional Racism Design,Tricia Rauen, Treehouse Design and Betty Adair, The Castle Press Photographers,Todd Cheney, Regina McConahay, Scott 25 MAJOR GIFTS Leadership in the Development office: Quintard, Bill Short and Mary Ann Stuehrmann 1 Assistant Dean Kerry Bresnahan ‘89 UCLA School of Law Board of Advisors Director of Major Gifts Donna Colin Michael Masin ’69, Co-Chair Director of Annual and Special Giving Charles Cannon Kenneth Ziffren ’65, Co-Chair William M.
  • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Jerry's Judges And

    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Jerry's Judges And

    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE Jerry's Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty: The Judicial Election of 1986 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts In History By Joseph Makhluf May 2011 The thesis of Joseph Makhlufis approved: Thomas Maddux, PhD. Date Andrea Henderson, PhD. Date Josh Sides, PhD., Chair Date California State University, Northridge 11 Table of Contents Signature Page 11 Abstract IV Introduction 1 Chapter 1: The California Supreme Court, 1978-1982 5 Chapter 2: The 1978 Gubernatorial Election 10 Chapter 3: TheNew Right Attack on the Courts 14 Chapter 4: The Death Penalty in the United States 20 Chapter 5 The 1982 Gubernatorial Election 22 Chapter 6: The Death Penalty Cases 34 Chapter 7: The Rose Bird Court and the Death Penalty 36 Chapter 8: The Judicial Election of 1986 40 Chapter 9: The Business Cases 58 Chapter 10: ANew California 63 Chapter 11 : The Verdict 71 Bibliography 73 lll Abstract Jerry's Judges and the Politics of the Death Penalty: The Judicial Election of 1986 By Joseph Makhluf Master of Arts in History On February 12, 1977, California Governor Jerry Brown nominated Rose Elizabeth Bird as chief justice ofthe California Supreme Court, making her the first female member of the court. Throughout her tenure on the Court, Bird faced criticism over her stance on important economic and social issues facing the state such as Proposition 13 and the death penalty. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s numerous California politicians campaigned on law-and-order and anti-tax issues, and accusations of pro-defendant and anti-Proposition 13 rulings became the latest and most popular criticism of the Court by those such as Howard Jarvis and Attorney General George Deukmejian who would work hard to remove her and her liberal colleagues from the California Supreme Court.
  • Justice Charles Vogel [Charles Vogel 6260.Doc]

    Justice Charles Vogel [Charles Vogel 6260.Doc]

    California Appellate Court Legacy Project – Video Interview Transcript: Justice Charles Vogel [Charles_Vogel_6260.doc] Charles Vogel: My title – my former title, you mean? David Knight: Sure. Charles Vogel: Okay. I am, and was, Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second District. My name is Charles S. Vogel. My last name is spelled V (as in Victor)–o-g-e-l. David Knight: Wonderful. Justice Rubin. Laurence Rubin: Okay. Today is September 23, 2008. I am Larry Rubin, and I’m an associate justice on the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Eight. It is my great privilege to interview Justice Charles S. Vogel, retired Administrative Presiding Justice of the Second District and Presiding Justice of the court’s Division Four. This interview is part of the Legacy Project of the Court of Appeal and is produced by David Knight of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Good afternoon, Justice Vogel. Charles Vogel: Good afternoon, Larry. Laurence Rubin: Most judges – and certainly most attorneys – would probably associate you with complex business and civil cases, speaking of when you were a justice on the Court of Appeal, president of the state and county bar, head of the ABTL, law-and-motion judge, Sidley & Austin – the whole gamut of your background. I went back to 1972 and found kind of an interesting quote, I thought. And you said at the time, “Contrary to other respectable opinion, I think it’s better for a judge if he doesn’t heavily specialize in one field of law. If you’re constantly dealing with people charged with crimes, for example, you may get too callous.
  • Oral History Interview with Frank C. Newman

    Oral History Interview with Frank C. Newman

    California State Archives State Government Oral History Program Oral History Interview with FRANK C. NEWMAN Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley, 1946-present Justice, California Supreme Court, 1977--1983 January 24, Februrary 7, March 30, November 28, 1989; April 16, May 7, June 10, June 18, June 24, July 11, 1991 Berkeley, California By Carole Hicke Regional Oral History Office University of California, Berkeley RESTRICTIONS ON THIS INTERVIEW None. LITERARY RIGHTS AND QUOTATIONS This manuscript is hereby made available for research purposes only. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the California State Archivist or Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to: California State Archives 201 N. Sunrise Avenue Roseville, California 95661 or Regional Oral History Office 486 Library University of California Berkeley, California 94720 The request should include information of the specific passages and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Frank C. Newman, Oral History Interview, Conducted 1989 and 1991 by Carole Hicke, Regional Oral History Office, University of California at Berkeley, for the California State Archives State Government Oral History Program. California State Archives (916) 773-3000 Office of the Secretary of State 201 No. Sunrise Avenue (FAX) 773-8249 March Fong Eu Sacramento, California 95661 PREFACE On September 25, 1985, Governor George Deukmejian signed into law A.B. 2104 (Chapter 965 of the Statutes of 1985). This legislation established, under the administration of the California State Archives, a State Government Oral History Program "to provide through the use of oral history a continuing documentation of state policy development as reflected in California's legislative and executive history." The following interview is one of a series of oral histories undertaken for inclusion in the state program.
  • The California Supreme Court and the Popular Will

    The California Supreme Court and the Popular Will

    37526 chp_19-1 Sheet No. 82 Side A 03/15/2016 15:53:04 Do Not Delete 2/14/2016 10:50 AM The California Supreme Court and the Popular Will Kenneth P. Miller* INTRODUCTION Over the past half century, California has been a battleground for conflicts over the nature, scope, and limits of rights. While Americans have always clashed over rights, the modern rights revolution has expanded the conflict throughout the country, and nowhere more than in California. These struggles have been hard fought, because rights have power. Once an interest is converted into a right, it can trump competing interests that lack the status of right. The ability to recognize, create, or limit rights is consequential, indeed.1 California’s prominence in these conflicts can be traced to several factors. First, the state has deep ideological divides. California is home to progressive social movements that have sought to establish new rights in areas including abortion, capital punishment, criminal procedure, school funding, gay rights, aid-in-dying, and more—and home, as well, to highly motivated conservative groups that have resisted many of these changes. Second, California exists within a federal system that allows states to innovate in the area of rights. State constitutional rights operate semi-independently of the U.S. Constitution—that is, states may define state constitutional 37526 chp_19-1 Sheet No. 82 Side A 03/15/2016 15:53:04 rights more expansively than the Federal Constitution requires. An assertive state supreme court, through state constitutional interpretation, can establish new rights. The California Supreme Court, more than any other state court, has expanded state constitutional rights beyond federal minimums.2 Third, citizens of California have extraordinary power to counter their state supreme court, through state constitutional amendment or * Associate Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College.
  • The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: the Case of Malpractice Insurance

    The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: the Case of Malpractice Insurance

    The Politics of Lawyer Regulation: The Case of Malpractice Insurance LESLIE C. LEVIN* ABSTRACT This Article examines the politics of lawyer regulation and considers why some states will adopt lawyer regulation that protects the public, when others will not. It uses the debates over how to regulate uninsured lawyers as a lens through which to examine the question. Clients often cannot recover dam- ages from uninsured lawyers who commit malpractice, even when those lawyers cause serious harm. Yet only two states require that lawyers carry malpractice insurance. This Article uses case studies to examine the ways in which six states recently have addressed the issue of uninsured lawyers to understand this regu- latory failure. It uses interest group theory and cultural capture to explain why state supreme courts and legislatures rarely initiate efforts to regulate lawyers in this context, and why lawyer regulation is so dependent on the organized bar. The case studies suggest when some state bars will act to regulate lawyers in this context, and factors that affect whether states will ultimately adopt pub- lic-regarding laws. The Article concludes that if courts and legislatures will not initiate or support lawyer regulation that is unpopular with the bar, other means are needed to inject the public's interests into the regulatory process. It suggests two ways to do so. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................... 970 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF LAWYER (CO-)REGULATION . 975 II. REGULATORY CAPACITY, EXPERTISE, AND INCENTIVES: THEORIES OF WHY THE REGULATORS ACT . 978 A. THE COURTS ................................... 980 * Hugh Macgill Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law.