California Western School of Law

Fera, Richard D.

English

The European Economic Community and the Vredeling Proposal: The Debate to Temper Ideology with Realism

Hylin, Carl F.

Stemming the Arms Race in Outer Space: Suggested Revisions of the Outer Space Treaty Based on Three Successful Arms Control Measures

Law Review, California Western

California Western Law Review 
Volume 22 Number 2 Article 11 
1986 
Subject Index 
California Western Law Review 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr 
Recommended Citation 
Law Review, California Western (1986) "Subject Index," California Western Law Review: Vol. 22 : No. 2 , 
Article 11. 
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/11 
This Prefatory Matter is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For 
more information, please contact alm@cwsl.edu. 
SUBJECT INDEX
PAGE
Aviation
United States v. Varig: Can the
King Only Do Little
W rongs? .................. 175
Attorney-Client Relationship
The Creation of the Attorney-
Client Relationship: An
Emerging View ............ 209
Attorney Fees
Closing Pandora's Box:
Litigation Economics ....... 267
Civil Procedure
Good Faith Settlements: The
Inequitable Result of the
Evolving Definition of
"Equity" . ................
The Class Action, the Federal
Court and the Upper Class:
Is Notice, and Its Consequent
Cost, Really Necessary? ....
Constitutional Law
"New Rights for Handicapped
Newborns: Baby Doe and
Beyond ...................
Commercial Law
UCC § 2-713: A Defense of
Buyers' Expectancy Damages
Contracts
The Creation of the Attorney-
Client Relationship: An
Emerging View ............
UCC § 2-713: A Defense of
Buyers' Expectancy Damages
Copyright Law
Educating Sony: Requiem for a
"Fair Use" ... ............
Damages
UCC § 2-713: A Defense of
Buyers' Expectancy Damages
PAGE
Defenses
UCC § 2-713: A Defense to
Buyers' Expectancy Damages
Evidence
West Covina and Its Progeny:
Have the California Courts
Barricaded the Avenue of
Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
Negligence? . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Federal Law
The Class Action, the Federal
Court and the Upper Class:
Is Notice, and Its Consequent
362 Cost, Really Necessary? ....
The Medical Care Recovery
Act-Time for a Checkup
United States v. Varig: Can the
1 King Only Do Little
W rongs? ..................
Implications of Summa
Corporation on the Property
Rights of American Indians.
127
Handicapped Rights
"New" Rights for Handicapped
Newborns: Baby Doe andBeyond ...................
Hospital Liability
West Covina and Its Progeny:
209 Have the California Courts
Barricaded the Avenue of
233 Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
Negligence? . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
159 Indian Rights
Implications of Summa
Corporation on the Property
233 Rights of American Indians.
1
Law Review: Subject Index
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985
PAGE
Lawyers
The Creation of the Attorney-
Client Relationship: An
Emerging View ............
Closing Pandora's Box:
Litigation Economics .......
Litigation
Closing Pandora's Box:
Litigation Economics .......
Good Faith Settlements: The
Inequitable Result of the
Evolving Definition of
"Equity" . ................
Medical Jurisprudence
The Medical Care Recovery
Act-Time for a Checkup
West Covina and Its Progeny:
Have the California Courts
Barricaded the Avenue of
Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
Negligence? . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Parental Liability
Parental Liability for
Preconception Negligence:
Do Parents Owe a Duty to
Their Potential Children? ...
Privileges
The Creation of the Attorney-
Client Relationship: An
Emerging View ............
West Covina and Its Progeny:
Have the California Courts
Barricaded the Avenue of
Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
Negligence? . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Real Property
Implications of Summa
Corporation on the Property
Rights of American Indians.
Timesharing Property;
Assessment for Ad Valorem
PAGE
Tax: "Time" is of the
Essence .................. 104
209 Sovereign Immunity
United States v. Varig: Can the
267 King Only Do Little
W rongs? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statutory Immunities
267 United States v. Varig: Can the
King Only Do Little
W rongs? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
West Covina and Its Progeny:
362 Have the California Courts
Barricaded the Avenue of
Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
1 Negligence? . . . . . .
. . . . . .
...
Taxation
Timesharing Property;
Assessment for Ad Valorem
Tax: "Time" is of the
317 Essence ..................
Tort Liability
Good Faith Settlements: The
Inequitable Result of the
Evolving Definition of
289 "Equity" . ................
Parental Liability for
Preconception Negligence:
Do Parents Owe a Legal
Duty to Their Potential
209 Children? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
United States v. Varig: Can the
King Only Do Little
W rongs? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
West Covina and Its Progeny:
Have the California Courts
317 Barricaded the Avenue of
Relief Provided for Victims
of Hospital Corporate
Negligence? . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
385 Uniform Commercial Code
UCC § 2-713: A Defense to
Buyers' Expectancy Damages
2
California Western Law Review, Vol. 22 [1985], No. 2, Art. 11
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/11


Subject Index

California Western Law Review 
Volume 22 Number 2 Article 12 
1986 
Table of Cases 
California Western Law Review 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr 
Recommended Citation 
Law Review, California Western (1986) "Table of Cases," California Western Law Review: Vol. 22 : No. 2 , 
Article 12. 
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/12 
This Prefatory Matter is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For 
more information, please contact alm@cwsl.edu. 
TABLE OF CASES
PAGE
A
Abelson, Nemeroff v ............ 281
Adger v. State ................. 213-14
Allaire v. St. Lukes Hosp ........ 291-92
Allied Canners & Packers, Inc. v.
Victor Packing Co .......... 262, 266
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v.
Wilderness Soc'y ............. 279-80
Amador Valley Joint Union High
School Dist. v. State Bd. of
Equalization ................ 110-12
American Academy of Pediatrics
v. Heckler .................. 137-38
American Builders Supply, Inc.,
Gawlick v .................. 257
American Hosp. Assoc. v.
Heckler .................... 150
American Motorcycle Association
v. Superior Court ........... 363-64,
368-71, 374, 377-80, 383-
84
Anderson, Dolgorv v ........... 281
Andrulonis v. United States ..... 197
Antoni v. Greenhow ........... 282
Arcambel v. Wiseman .......... 279-80
B
Bar of Md., Folley Farms I, Inc.
v ......................... 230
Baxendale, Hadley v .......... 239, 274
Benson, Bijeul v. ............... 69
Bijeul v. Benson ............... 69
Bio-Science Laboratories,
Curlender ex rel. Curlender v. . 308-09
Bonbrest v. Kotz .............. 292
Brown ex rel. Brown v. Superior
Court .................... 33, 37-38
Burke v. Kleiman .............. 37-38
Busik v. Levine ................ 287
C
California ex rel. State Lands
Commission, Summa Corp. v.
. . 385-90, 399-402
Calmar S.S. Corp., Tucker v .... 273
Cardio-Systems, Inc. v. Superior
Court .................. 375-77, 381
PAGE
Carlisle & Jacqueline, Eisen v.... 34-35,
54-56, 60, 63-68, 70, 76,
79-80
Carlson, Schoderbek, v ......... .11
Cassidy, Gonzales v ...... 88-89, 92, 94
Catawaba Indian Tribe of S.C. v.
State of S.C. ................ 395
Central Hanover Bank & Trust
Co. v. Mullane ......... 40-49, 51-53
Charles County Broadcasting Co.
v. Meares ............... 258-59, 264
Charleston Memorial Hosp.,
Darling v ............... 324-26, 360
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. Elk
Refining Co ................. 287
Chessin, Park v ................ 295-96
Christian, Rowland v ........... 302
City of Miami v. Murphy ....... 280
City of Ottumwa v. Taylor ...... 282
Cole, Hall v .................. 281
College Park Hosp., Elam v. ... 318-21,
329-34, 338-45, 347-50,
353, 355-56, 360-61
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v.
Ford Motor Co .............. 373
Condrey, Hanley v ........... 269-70
Connecticut, Mohegan Tribe v... 393-95
Container Recovery Corp., M. K.
Metals, Inc. v ....... 259-60, 262, 266
County of Oneida v. Oneida
Indian Nation of N.Y ..... 396-99, 401
County of Santa Clara, Hewlett-
Packard, Co. v ............... 119-20
County of San Diego, General
Dynamics Corp. v ............ 120
County of Sonoma, Exchange
Bank v ..................... 118-19
Crown Fin. Corp., Peterson v. ... 271
Curlender ex rel. Curlender v.
Bio-Science Laboratories ...... 308-09
D
Dalehite v. United States ... 177-79, 199
Darling v. Charleston Memorial
Hosp ................... 324-26, 360
Davis, Redfield v ............... 281
1
Law Review: Table of Cases
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985
PAGE
Dietrich v. Inhabitants of North
Hampton ................... 290-91
Director of Selective Service,
Germonprez v ............... 57-58
Director of Selective Service
System, McCarthy v .......... 59
Doe v. New York Univ ......... 149
Dolgow v. Anderson ........... 281
Dompeling v. Superior Court .... 375-77
Dunham, First Nat'l Bank v ..... 281
E
Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Rapp v. . 181-82
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacqueline ... 34-35,
54-56, 60, 63-68, 70, 76,
79-80
Elam v. College Park Hosp ..... 318-21,
329-34, 338-45, 347-50,
353, 355-56, 360-61
Elk Refining Co., Chesapeake &
Ohio Ry. v .................. 287
Ellenstein v. Herman Body Co. .. 228-29
EPA, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v ............... 279
Exchange Bank v. County of
Sonoma .................... 118-19
F
Farmers State Bank, Langeland v. 225
First Nat'l Bank v. Dunham .... 281
Flaig, Heyer v ............. 214-15, 219
Flammia v. United States ....... 198
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v.
Maier Brewing Co ............ 284
Folley Farms I, Inc. v. Bar of
M d ......................... 230
Ford Motor Co., Commercial
Union Ins. Co. v ............. 373
Forstier, Rice v ................ 224
Fresno County, Guild Wineries
and Distilleries v ........... 110, 112
G
Garbarino v. United States ...... 182-83
Gawlick v. American Builders
Supply, Inc .................. 257
General Dynamics Corp. v.
County of San Diego ......... 120
PAGE
General Motors Corp., Johnson v.
......................... 90-92, 94
General Public Utilities Corp. v.
United States ................ 198
George, Hewlett v .............. 297-98
George v. United States ......... 183-84
Germonprez v. Director of
Selective Service ............. 57-58
Gerwin v. Southeastern Cal. Ass'n
of Seventh Day Adventists .... 257
Gibbs v. United States .......... 181
Gillingham v. Stadler ........... 257-58
Gonzales v. Cassidy ...... 88-89, 92, 94
Goudy v. Mayberry ............ 282
Greenberg, Marker v ........... 225
Greenhow, Antoni v ............ 282
Gregory v. Hershey ......... 56, 58, 62
Gregory v. Tarr ............... 63, 78
Guild Wineries and Distilleries v.
Fresno County ............ 110, 112
H
Hadley v. Baxendale ......... 239, 274
Hall v. Cole ................... 281
Hamm, Lucas v ................ 219
Hammond v. Hannin ........... 259
Hanley v. Condrey ............. 269-70
Hannin, Hammond v ........... 259
Hansberry v. Lee ........ 36-39, 91, 94
Harrison, Nancy Lee Mines, Inc.
v ........................... 229-30
Hartsock v. Mort .............. 259
Hawk v. Superior Court ........ 269
Heckler, American Academy of
Pediatrics v .................. 137-38
Heckler, American Hosp. Assoc.
v ........................... 150
Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial
Hosp. v. Superior Court .... 338, 341
Herman Body Co., Ellenstein v.. 228-29
Hershey, Gregory v .......... 56, 58, 62
Hewlett v. George ............. 297-98
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. County of
Santa Clara ................. 119-20
Heyer v. Flaig ............. 214-15,219
Hoffman v. Morgan ............ 282
2
California Western Law Review, Vol. 22 [1985], No. 2, Art. 12
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/12
PAGE
I
Indian Towing Co. v. United
States .................. 178-80, 190
Inhabitants of North Hampton,
Dietrich v ............... 290-91
Iowa, Sosna v ................ 67-68, 76
In re Air Crash Disaster Near
Silver Plume, Colorado ....... 182
In re Infant Doe ............... 132-34
In re Makowski ............... 226
In re Minor ................... 154-55
In re Phillip B ................. 155
In re Quinlan ................. 129-32
In re Weberlist ................ 156
i
Johnson v. General Motors Corp.
......... 90-92, 94
Jump Schack, Inc., Takacs v .... 183
K
Kenney v. Superior Court ....... 333-34
Kleiman, Burke v .............. 37-38
Kotz, Bonbrest v ............... 292
L
Langeland v. Farmers State Bank 225
Larinoff v. United States ........ 71,
73-74, 76-80, 90
Laycock v. Parker ............. 286
Lee, Hansberry v ......... 36-39, 91, 94
Levine, Busik v ................ 287
Li v. Yellow Cab Co ........... 363-64,
368-69, 378, 380, 383-84
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,
Wetzel v .................. 80-85, 90
Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. McCray.. 280
Lipsig v. National Student Mktg.
Corp ....................... 281
Lowe v. Waller ................ 285
Lucas v. Hamm ............... 219
M
Maier Brewing Co., Fleishmann
Distilling Corp. v ............ 284
Marcus v. Rowley ............. 170
Marker v. Greenberg ........... 225
PAGE
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury
Corp ....................... 392-93
Matchett v. Superior Court ..... 334-36,
338, 341-43, 345-47, 349
Mayberry, Goudy v ............ 282
McCarthy v. Director of Selective
Service System .............. 59
McCray, Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. 280
McKelvey v. McKelvey ......... 298
McMichael v. United States ..... 197
Meares, Charles County
Broadcasting Co. v ...... 258-59, 264
Mennonite Hosp., Renslow ex rel.
Renslow v ............ 294-95, 314
Miller v. Mueller .............. 211
Miller v. Robertson .......... 273, 286
M. K. Metals, Inc. v. Container
Recovery Corp ...... 259-60, 262, 266
Mohegan Tribe v. Connecticut... 393-95
Moore-McCormack Lines v.
Richardson ................. 271
Moore, United States v .......... 21
Morgan, Hoffman v. ........... 282
Mort, Hartsock v .............. 259
Morton, Passamaquoddy v ...... 391-92
Mt. Diablo Medical Center v.
Superior Court .............. 344-45
Mueller, Miller v ............... 211
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank
& Trust Co ............. 40-49, 51-53
Murphy, City of Miami v ........ 280
N
Nancy Lee Mines, Inc. v.
Harrison .................... 229-30
Narragansett Tribe v. Southern
R.I. Land Dev. Corp .......... 396
National Carriers, Inc. v. United
States ...................... 197
National Student Mktg. Corp.,
Lipsig v ..................... 281
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v.
United States ................ 197-98
Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. EPA ......... 279
Neal-Cooper Grain Co. v. Texas
Gulf Sulphur Co ............. 256
Nemeroff v. Abelson ........... 281
3
Law Review: Table of Cases
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985
PAGE
New Seabury Corp., Mashpee
Tribe v ..................... 392-93
New York v. Oneida Indian
Nation of N.Y ........... 396-99, 401
New York Univ., Doe v ......... 149
Nicholson v. Shockey .......... 218-19
NLRB, Spencer v .............. 281
0
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y.,
County of Oneida v ...... 396-99, 401
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y.,
New York v ............. 396-99, 401
Owen v. United States ......... 373
P
Page v. Penrose ............... 228
Park v. Chessin ................ 295-96
Parker, Laycock v .............. 286
Passamaquoddy v. Morton ...... 391-92
Pasquier v. Tarr ............... 59-60
Penrose, Page v ................ 228
Peterson v. Crown Fin. Corp. ... 271
Phillips, State v ................ 286
Piper, Roadway Express, Inc. v.. 281
Pollard, Rouse v ............... 229
Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co. v.
Sherman .................... 285
R
Rapp v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc... 181-82
Redfield v. Davis .............. 281
Renslow ex reL Renslow v.
Mennonite Hosp ......... 294-95, 314
Rice v. Forestier ............... 224
Richardson, Moore-McCormack
Lines v ..................... 271
River Garden Farms, Inc. v.
Superior Court .......... 373-74, 379
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper.. 281
Robertson, Miller v ........... 273, 286
Robinson, Vance v ........... 216-17
Roe v. Wade .................. 131
Roller ex rel. Million v. Roller... 298
Roseville Community Hosp. v.
Superior Court .......... 337-38, 341
Rouse v. Pollard ............... 229
Rowland v. Christian ........... 302
Rowley, Marcus v .............. 170
PAGE
Rysdael, Tevander v ............ 280
S
S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea
Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines),
United States v ........ 175, 186-94
Saddleback Community Hosp. v.
Superior Court .............. 343-44
Santa Rosa Memorial Hosp. v.
Superior Court .............. 354-56
Schoderbek v. Carlson .......... III
Schrader v. Selective Service
System .................. 58, 60, 63
Schulz v. Superior Court .... 336-38, 341
Selective Service System, Schrader
v ........................ 58, 60, 63
Sherman, Procter & Gamble
Distrib. Co. v ................ 285
Shokey, Nicholson v ............ 218-19
Snell v. Superior Court ......... 341-43
Sony Corp. of America v.
Universal City Studios, Inc ...
.................... 160-61, 170-71
Sorenson v. Sorenson .......... 299-300
Sosna v. Iowa ............... 67-68, 76
Southeastern Cal. Ass'n of
Seventh Day Adventists,
Gerwin v .................... 257
Southern R.I. Land Land Dev.
Corp., Narragansett Tribe v. 396
Southern Ry., Troutman v ....... 270
Spencer v. NLRB .............. 281
Stadler, Gillingham v ........... 257-58
Standard Oil Co., United States v. 2
State, Adger v ................. 213-14
State Bd. of Equalization,
Amador Valley Joint Union
High School Dist. v ......... 110-12
State of S.C., Catawaba Indian
Tribe of S.C. v ............... 395
State v. Phillips ................ 281
St. Lukes Hosp., Allaire v ....... 291-92
Stony Brook Hosp., Weber v ..... 142-44
Summa Corp. v. California ex rel.
State Lands Commission ......
................... 385-90, 399-402
Superior Court, American
Motorcycle Assoc. v ......... 363-64,
4
California Western Law Review, Vol. 22 [1985], No. 2, Art. 12
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/12
PAGE
368-71, 374, 377-80, 383-
84
Superior Court, Brown ex reL
Brown v ................ 349, 353-54
Superior Court, Cardio-Systems v.
. .375-77, 381
Superior Court, Dompeling v. ... 375-77
Superior Court, Hawk v ........ 269
Superior Court, Henry Mayo
Newhall Memorial Hosp. v. . 338, 341
Superior Court, Kenney v ...... 333-34
Superior Court, Matchett v .... 334-36,
338, 34243, 345-47, 349
Superior Court, Mt. Diablo
Medical Center v ............. 344-45
Superior Court, River Garden
Farms, Inc. v ............ 373-74, 379
Superior Court, Roseville
Community Hosp. v ...... 337-38, 341
Superior Court, Saddleback
Community Hosp. v .......... 343-44
Superior Court, Santa Rosa
Memorial Hosp. v ............ 354-56
Superior Court, Schulz v. ... 336-38, 341
Superior Court, Snell V. ...... 341-43
Superior Court, West Covina
Hosp. v ................... 320-21,
339-41, 345-48, 361
T
Takaes v. Jump Shack, Inc ...... 183
Tarr, Gregory v ................ 63, 78
Tarr, Pasquier v ................ 59-60
Tarr, Whitmore v .............. 57
Tarr, Zeilstra v ................ 63
Taylor, City of Ottumwa v ....... 282
Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-
Clyde & Associates .......... 362,
373-74, 376-78
Tenants & Owners in Opposition
to Redev. v. United States
Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.. 281
Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., Neal-
Cooper Grain Co. v .......... 256
Tevander v. Rysdael ........... 280
Togstad v. Vesely, Otto, Miller &
Keefe ...................... 221-25
Troutman v. Southern Ry ....... 270
Tucker v. Calmar S.S. Corp. ..... 273
Turner v. Zip Motors, Inc ....... 282
PAGE
U
United Scottish Ins. Co., United
States v ............... 187, 189, 193
United Shoe Mach. Corp., United
States v ..................... 212
United States, Andrulonis v ...... 197
United States, Dalehite v. ... 177-79, 199
United States Dep't of Hous. &
Urban Dev., Tenants & Owners
in Opposition to Redev. v..... 281
United States, Flammia v ........ 198
United States, Garbarino v ...... 182-83
United States, General Public
Utilities Corp. v ............. 198
United States, George v ......... 183-84
United States, Gibbs v .......... 181
United States, Indian Towing Co.
v ....................... 178-80, 190
United States, Larinoff v ........ 71,
73-74, 76-80, 90
United States, McMichael v..... 197
United States v. Moore ......... 21
United States, National Carriers,
Inc. v ....................... 197
United States, Natural Gas
Pipeline Co. v. ............ 197-98
United States, Owen v .......... 373
United States v. S.A. Empresa de
Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense
(Varig Airlines) .......... 175, 186-94
United States v. Standard Oil Co. 2
United States v. United Scottish
Ins. Co ............... 187, 189, 193
United States v. United Shoe
Mach. Corp ................. 212
United States v. University Hosp. 143-50
United States, Williams & Wilkins
Co. v ....................... 164
United States v. York .......... 5
Universal City Studios, Inc., Sony
Corp. of America v... 160-61, 170-71
University Hosp., United States v. 143-50
V
Vance v. Robinson ............. 216-17
Vesely, Otto, Miller & Keefe,
Togstad v ................... 221-25
Victor Packing Co., Allied
Canners & Packers, Inc. v... 262, 266
5
Law Review: Table of Cases
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985
PAGE-
W
Wade, Roe v .................. 131
Waller, Lowe v ................ 285
Weber v. Stony Brook Hosp .... 142-44
West Covina Hosp. v. Superior
Court ..................... 320-21,
339-41, 345-48, 361
Wetzel v. Liberty Mutual
Insurance Co .............. 80-85, 90
Whitmore v. Tarr .............. 57
Wilderness Soe'y, Alyeska
Pipeline Serv. Co. v ......... 279-80
Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United
States ...................... 164
PAGE
Wiseman, Arcambel v ........ 279-80
Woodward-Clyde & Associates,
Tech-Bilt, Inc. v ............. 362,
373-74, 376-78
Y
Yellow Cab Co., Li v .......... 363-64,
368-69, 378, 380, 383-84
York, United States v ........... 5
z
Zeilstra v. Tarr ................ 63
Zip Motors, Inc., Turner v ....... 282
6
California Western Law Review, Vol. 22 [1985], No. 2, Art. 12
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/12
7Law Review: Table of Cases
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985


Table of Cases

Goldman, Eva Csiszar

International Trademark Licensing Agreements: A Key to Future Technological Development

Philip, P. Robert, Jr.

The South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone, the Law of the Sea, and the Anzus Alliance: An Exploration of Conflicts, a Step Toward World Peace

Loftis,, Robert O., Jr.

Problems in the Use of Trusts for Funding Private Annuities

Langstraat, Craig J.

SCHOLARLY OPINION -- Client Identity and the Attorney-Client Privilege: The Tax Attack Continues

Lightstone, Peter B.

The Cumis Decision -- What has it Done to Insurance Policies?

California Western Law Review 
Volume 22 Number 2 Article 9 
1986 
Books in Brief 
California Western Law Review 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr 
Recommended Citation 
Law Review, California Western (1986) "Books in Brief," California Western Law Review: Vol. 22 : No. 2 , 
Article 9. 
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/9 
This Prefatory Matter is brought to you for free and open access by CWSL Scholarly Commons. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in California Western Law Review by an authorized editor of CWSL Scholarly Commons. For 
more information, please contact alm@cwsl.edu. 
BOOKS IN BRIEF
CORPORATE AND COMMERCIAL FREE SPEECH: FIRST AMEND-
MENT PROTECTION OF EXPRESSION IN BUSINESS. By Edwin P.
Rome and William H. Roberts. Quorum Books: Westport, Con-
necticut. 1985. Pp. 269. $39.95. The authors examine, in the
context of current judicial decisions, the extent to which corpo-
rate communications are protected by the First Amendment.
The authors assess the extent of constitutional protection of two
basic kinds of business expression: corporate commercial speech,
i.e., advertising, sales solicitation, as well as other forms of com-
mercially oriented business expression; and corporate political
speech, i.e., the expenditure of corporate general treasury funds
for the purpose of communicating information, a viewpoint, or an
opinion concerning public affairs.
Tracing the evolution and current status of the "commercial
speech" doctrine, this volume contains an historical survey of
federal and state legislation restricting corporate expenditures for
publicizing viewpoints on issues of public concern. An analysis
of the Supreme Court's decisions in the landmark cases of First
National Bank of Boston v. Ballotti and Consolidated Edison Co.
v. Public Service Commission is included. A detailed index, a bib-
liography, and a table of cases facilitate the use of this volume.
Providing important background and a current assessment of the
law concerning First Amendment protection for corporate adver-
tising and corporate political speech, this volume is a valuable
resource for corporate counsel and chief executive officers. Per-
sonnel in advertising and communications firms as well as state
and federal agencies charged with enforcing laws dealing with
false advertising and consumer affairs will find this informational
reading.
GOD SAVE THIS HONORABLE COURT: HOW THE CHOICE OF
SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SHAPES OUR HISTORY. By Lau-
rence H. Tribe. Random House: New York, New York. 1984.
$17.95. This book examines how the choices of the Justices of
the United States Supreme Court shape our lives and the destiny
of the nation. The author argues for fuller involvement by the
Senate and by the American public, in the process of selecting the
Supreme Court Justices. The book examines nearly two centuries
of Court decisions, wich reveal the crucial role each Justice plays.
The author analyzes Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona,
1
Law Review: Books in Brief
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985
CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW
landmark decisions which established basic rights for an accused.
Additionally, the author discusses the Bakke case on reverse dis-
crimination, which was decided by a single vote. Thus a single
vote permitted social policy and the course of history to be
changed.
The author also explores popular myths concerning how much it
matters which individuals are selected as Justices. Among these
ill-founded notions, discussed in fascinating detail, is "the myth
of the surprised President," which holds that Justices often turn
away from the policies of those who appoint them. Quite the
contrary, says the author, presidents usually get exactly what
they want from the persons they choose. Nor does "the myth of
the spineless Senate" survive scrutiny. History demonstrates
that, in fact, the Senate has not acted as a mere rubber stamp for
the President; it has rejected almost one out of every five nomi-
nees to the Court.
Looking toward the future, the author emphasizes the impor-
tance of the Senate in maintaining a Court sensitive to the diverse
cultures of the American people, and outlines those attributes
necessary to fulfill the duties of a Justice. He discusses how the
notion of a Court balanced along ethnic, geographical, or polit-
ical lines has affected appointments. He warns against accepting
the nomination of Justices who are tied to a single issue, such as
abortion, showing through historical example how this is a recipe
for a disastrous appointment.
WITNESS INTIMIDATION: THE LAW'S RESPONSE. By Michael H.
Graham. Quorum Books: Westport, Connecticut. 1985. Pp.
317. $39.95. "I didn't see anything!" "I don't remember any-
thing!" "Definitely wasn't him!" These phrases when spoken in
court by an important witness often fill prosecuting attorneys and
law enforcement officials with feelings of helpless frustration, for
they are the signs of a "turncoat" or "flipped" witness: when the
victim or witness to a crime is called to testify by the prosecution
(if he or she is available at all), he or she offers testimony that
differs from prior statements. Most such witnesses have been in-
timidated to change their testimony. Successful witness intimida-
tion frequently changes the outcome of the trial. Whether
successful or not, witness intimidation adversely affects people.
Can anything be done? The author in this book believes that
there are things which can be done. He demonstrates that, his-
torically, justice has been oriented to the offender: it has focused
on apprehension, prosecution, and punishment of the criminal
and has ignored the victim or witness. Today, however, local
[Vol. 22
2
California Western Law Review, Vol. 22 [1985], No. 2, Art. 9
https://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol22/iss2/9
1986] BOOKS IN BRIEF 405
assistance programs are helping victims by seeking to reduce the
opportunities for intimidation, providing compensation and, in
some cases, restitution for victims.
But this is not enough. To meet the problem squarely, the author
argues, the system must eliminate the benefit derived from wit-
ness intimidation by preserving the victim's or witness' testimony
in a form admissible at trial. To do this, the legal profession must
broaden avenues currently available to preserve prior out-of-
court statements and to admit such statements as substantive evi-
dence when the prior statement is deemed sufficiently trustwor-
thy. Finally, the author advances a new proceeding-the
"preservation proceeding"-that would permit the prosecutor to
bring a witness before a judge, magistrate, or specially appointed
attorney for the express purpose of preserving the witness' testi-
mony against the threat of intimidation.
3
Law Review: Books in Brief
Published by CWSL Scholarly Commons, 1985


Books in Brief