The web edition of the California Law Review.
CLR Online
Regulating Offensiveness: <em>Snyder v. Phelps</em>, Emotion, and the First Amendment
Since 2005, the Reverend Fred Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church have outraged almost everyone by protesting near military funerals. In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court will finally decide whether that outrage is actionable. Few people will lose sleep if the Court finds that the First Amendment allows Albert Snyder to sue the Phelpses for intentional infliction…
Liability and the Health Care Bill: An “Alternative” Perspective
The recently passed health care bill1 contains many provisions that deserve celebration. Improving access to care is an important first step. Enhancing patient safety and accountability is an important second step, one that proponents of medical malpractice reform often undermine with attempts to restrict the liability of health care providers through “litigation alternatives.” During the health care…
Professionalism and Power: Flawed Decision Making by the OLC Exposes a Bar That is Losing Its Moxie
In recent years, legal scholars and practitioners alike have expressed major misgivings about the advice that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) provided to former President George W. Bush following the attacks of September 11, 2001. On February 19, 2010, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. released internal communications of the Justice…
Self-Represented Litigants in Family Law: The Response of California’s Courts
Approximately 200,000 divorce petitions are filed annually in California. Seventy percent of those cases involve at least one self-represented litigant at the beginning of the case. That figure increases to 80 percent by the time of judgment. This is not simply a California issue. Utah, for example, reports that 49 percent of petitioners and 81 percent of respondents in divorce…
The Elkins Task Force: Meeting the Challenges of Family Law in California’s Courts
In 2007, the California Supreme Court faced a difficult question: were procedures used in a family law court, intended to make the process easier for the litigants, in fact violating their rights to due process? Deciding that they were, the Court declared: "[t]hat a procedure is efficient and moves cases through the system is admirable, but even more important is for the courts to provide fair and…