Absolute Immunity from Civil Liability: Lessons for Litigation Lawyers

The common law doctrine of absolute immunity provided to litigation lawyers is said to be as old as law. This centuries-old doctrine protects litigators from lawsuits instigated by the adversaries of their clients. It is typically invoked, irrespective of any nefarious or malicious motives, so long as the course of action taken bears some reasonable relation to the lawsuit. This Article examines the historical antecedents of the litigation privilege as well as the policies motivating its creation. It also provides a comprehensive description of the doctrine of absolute immunity, explores the circumstances in which it has been applied, and discusses potential legal issues that may effect its application in any given case. After considering its venerable jurisprudence, the Article derives an analytical framework for future cases of absolute immunity and details the determinants of the doctrine given prominence in the precedents. The paradigm is intended to assist in the development of the lawyer\u27s litigation privilege and support its continued existence in the twenty-first century

Another Casualty of the War . . . Vagrancy Laws Target the Fourth Amendment

This Comment will review the origins of the vagrancy law and its traditional abuses. It will then examine decisions discussing the vagrancy law\u27s constitutionality under the Due Process clause void-for-vagueness doctrine and the courts\u27 attempted remedy of explicit standards as to place, scope, or purpose. The remainder of this Comment will discuss the constitutionality of these revised vagrancy laws under the Fourth Amendment\u27s prohibition of unreasonable seizures

Stare Decisis and the Status of California’s Super Pension Contract

A fundamental principle of law is that courts stand by their decisions. Under the principle of stare decisis, judicial action strives for stability and coherence by setting precedents for the future in deciding current cases. This Article presents an original inquiry into the overruling expression and criteria for stare decisis in the public pension reform context of California’s constitutional contract law. While there is a lively debate among commentators and judges about the role of stare decisis theory and doctrine in federal law, our study extends that conversation to state law for the first time. We develop a new decision-making framework by synthesizing state and federal decisions to provide a fresh perspective on the perennial problem of whether cases should be settled or settled right. Utilizing the proposed decisional model, we analyze if the Supreme Court of California should retain or repudiate its super pension contract. This contract—commonly called the “California Rule”—is the primary obstacle to pension reform under the Contract Clause. The rule has con-tributed to the state’s pension crisis by granting protection of future accruals on the first day of government employment. Because the California Rule has been widely adopted in other jurisdictions that are similarly struggling to man-age debilitating pension debt, the foregoing evaluation of precedent’s durability has important and far-reaching implications

Clashing Canons and the Contract Clause

This Article is the first in-depth examination of substantive canons that judges use to interpret public pension legislation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions. The resolution of constitutional controversies concerning pension reform will have a profound influence on government employment. The assessment begins with a general discussion of these interpretive techniques before turning to their operation in public pension litigation. It concentrates on three clashing canons: the remedial (purpose) canon, the “no contract” canon (otherwise known as the unmistakability doctrine), and the constitutional avoidance canon. For these three canons routinely employed in pension law, there has been remarkably little research on their history, evolution, or impact. This study spotlights the methodology that underlies these diverse and complicated judgments. Illuminating actual judicial practices lets us better comprehend when, how, and why these canons function. It puts us in a position to choose the most appropriate canon(s) and to offer improvements on their operation. It also allows us to relate the role of canons to other kinds of legal reasoning. Significantly, studying these canons fills a void in state statutory interpretation as well as contributes to a better understanding of state court enforcement of the Contract Clause that has received scarcely any attention