Special Libraries, January 1913

Volume 4, Issue 1https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_sl_1913/1000/thumbnail.jp

WITNESSES - EFFECT OF MENTAL DEFICIENCY ON COMPETENCY AND CREDIBILITY

Inquiry into the admissibility of evidence showing mental deficiency in a witness is suggested by State v. Teager, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Iowa. Defendant, charged with assault with intent to commit rape, offered to prove by a school teacher that the complaining witness, a child twelve years old, was at least two years behind in her school work . . . subnormal mentally . . . and ought to be in an institution . . . . No objection had been made to the competency of such witness. It was held that the evidence was correctly excluded by the trial judge. The court indicated, however, that had the capacity of the witness been challenged when she was offered, and had she passed the examination and been sworn, the testimony would have been admissible as bearing on her credibility. The reported cases indicate wide divergence in result, grounded on the peculiar purpose for which the evidence is presented. As a preliminary matter, therefore, the situations may be considered where mental condition is conceivably vital

10% 04/1994

https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/ten_p/1002/thumbnail.jp

Letting Bayous Be Bygones: Should Louisiana Be Allowed to Mandate Use of the Pre-Socialist Vietnam Flag?

The State of Louisiana recently enacted S.B. 839, a state law that mandates the use of the flag of the former Democratic Republic of Vietnam at all state-sponsored public functions and public schools where Vietnam is to be represented. S.B. 839 has added further tension to the relationship between Vietnam and the United States, which is already strained by the unresolved issue of American prisoners of war ( POWs ), those missing in action ( MIA ) in Vietnam, and the recent opening of Vietnam\u27s economy to the rest of the world. Although fifty-nine cities and three other states in the United States have passed resolutions similar to the law in Louisiana, S.B. 839 remains the only state legislation that retains vigorous anti-Communist language and forbids the flying of the actual Socialist flag. S.B. 839 is a form of unprotected government speech that intrudes on the federal government\u27s exclusive power to handle foreign affairs in violation of the Dormant Foreign Affairs Power ( DFAP ) doctrine. Established by the Supreme Court in Zschernig v. Miller, this doctrine has never been overruled. The Supreme Court has never directly spoken to the specific issue of flags as implements of foreign policy. Lower courts have limited their use of the DFAP doctrine to arguably more material issues, such as selective taxation or the denial of higher education to certain foreign students. Yet S.B. 839 touches upon the main concerns behind the DFAP doctrine: unwanted disturbance of the relationship between the United States and a foreign country, and encouragement of similar action by other states and cities. Because S.B. 839 poses a challenge to the traditional isolation of states from foreign affairs, the Vietnamese-American community should propose a version of S.B. 839 in the United States Congress if they wish to address their underlying concerns

Socorro Chieftain, 12-05-1908

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/socorro_c_news/1567/thumbnail.jp

Restating Duty, Breach, and Proximate Cause in Negligence Law: Descriptive Theory and the Rule of Law

The American Law Institute ( ALI ) set out to restate the general common law in the United States in order to promote clarity and certainty in the common law, which were threatened by the ever increasing volume of the decisions of the [different state] courts, establishing new rules or precedents, and the numerous in- stances in which the decisions are irreconcilable. Clarity and certainty in the common law across the United States, of course, re- quires uniformity. Naturally enough, then, the Institute recognized that a Restatement would promote clarity and certainty in the law only insofar as the legal profession accepts the Restatement as prima facie a correct statement of the general law of the United States. The Second and Third Restatements recognized additional objects: to correct errors in earlier restatements, to reflect changes in the common law since earlier restatements, and, in limited circumstances, to promote clearly desirable reform. None of these additional objects can be secured without first achieving uniformity, certainty, and clarity. The original object, therefore, remains of primary importance. This primary object seems to have clear implications for the form of a restatement. Uniformity, clarity, and certainty in the law would be enhanced by a black-letter restatement of the law. The black-letter law could be in the form of specific rules applicable directly to a set of facts, or in the form of standards, with enough specificity to give understandable guidance to the decision-maker called upon to apply the standard to a specific set of facts. The American Law Institute has taken these implications to heart; each restatement is in the form of a set of black-letter rules or standards, with commentary. When there are conflicting specific rules in different states, each restatement adopts one of the rules rather than formulating a legal directive at a higher level of generality that could plausibly describe both of the conflicting rules. In an important sense, then, the primary object of the Restatement project limits the form that any restatement can take, because the goals of uniformity, clarity, and certainty can be achieved only if the law is restated with clarity in a form that can be applied uniformly to yield predictable, certain results