About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 Pepp. L. Rev. 209 (1973-1974)
The Constitutional Infirmity of the California Government Claim Statute

handle is hein.journals/pepplr1 and id is 219 raw text is: The Constitutional Infirmity of the California Government Claim Statute JAMES C. DOWNING* and NIKOLAI TEHIN, Jr.** Where doubt enters in, there enters the judicial function. -Cardozo' In recent years, the California Supreme Court has swept from the law a number of archaic legal doctrines;2 doctrines touching the most intimate aspects of the lives of California citizens, but having little relationship to the realities of life in contemporary * B.S., 1949, University of California at Berkeley; L.L.B. 1952, Uni- versity of California, Hastings College of Law; National President Ameri- can Board of Trial Advocates; member California Bar. ** A.B., 1969, University of California at Berkeley; J.D., 1972, Univer- sity of California, Hastings College of Law; member California Bar. 1. B.N. Cardozo, The Paradoxes of Legal Science, at 10 (1928). 2. Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 106 Cal. Rptr. 388 (1973), wherein the Court held unconstitutional the automobile guest statute. In People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628, 493 P.2d 880, 100 Cal. Rptr. 152 (1972), the Court held capital punishment to be unconstitutional. Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3d 914, 479 P.2d 648, 92 Cal. Rptr. 288 (1971), wherein the Court reviewed the doctrine of parental immunity for per- sonal torts and rejected it as an anachronism.