Volume 36 Number 4 -- Summer 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEVELOPMENTS IN CALIFORNIA HOMICIDE LAW

I. Introduction

by Haaris Syed   

II. California Homicide Law: The Basics

by Shiva Shirazi Davoudian  

III. Mens Rea: Purpose to Kill Offenses

by Julie Engels

IV. Mens Rea: Unintentional Homicide

by Amanda Gamer   

V. Causation in California Homicide

by Laura Schiesl Goodwin

VI. The Felony-Murder Doctrine

by Clayton T. Tanaka and Larry M. Lawrence, II

VII. Accomplice Liability:  Derivative Responsibility

by Larry M. Lawrence, II

VIII. Conspiracy in Homicide

by Benjamin S. Lin  

IX. Self-Defense

by Janet Grumer   

X. The Insanity Defense

by Stephanie K. Lashbrook

NOTES AND COMMENTS

Old vs. Older: Creating a Cause of Action for Reverse Age Discrimination Under the ADEA in Cline v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc.

by Tamar Buchakjian   

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently decided Cline v. General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. and opened the door to reverse age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA). The court held that younger workers between ages forty and forty-nine, who are protected by the ADEA, are entitled to bring a cause of action under the ADEA and claim that they have been treated more disfavorably than older workers. This Case Comment takes the position that, in creating a reverse discrimination cause of action, the Sixth Circuit protects the rights of all employees within the protected class and adequately furthers the goals of the ADEA in fighting age-based discrimination in the workplace.

And Then Along Came John: Federal Statutory Interpretation in Contravention of State Law Violates Principles of Federalism

by Geoffrey C. Kertesz  

Principles of federalism demand that when a federal official interprets federal law in contravention of state law in an area traditionally left to state regulation, there is an express declaration of Congressional intent to supercede the conflicting state law. Without such an approach, federal officials are free to interpret federal law in a manner that potentially tramples existing state regulation of matters within the state police power. In this Note, the author explores principles of federalism and applies this approach to the current standoff between Attorney General John Ashcroft and the state of Oregon over the validity of Oregon 's Death with Dignity Act, and concludes that Ashcroft's actions do not pass constitutional muster.

Compensating a California Wrongful Life Plaintiff for General Damages and Damages for Lost Earning Capacity

by Jason Skolnik  

The tort of wrongful life occurs when a child plaintiff alleges that-due to the negligence of the defendant doctor-his parents would not have conceived him, thus sparing him from his impaired existence. California courts recognize the wrongful life cause of action, but have been unwilling to award general damages or damages for loss of earning capacity. The courts have found that the damages are incalculable, and that the jury would not be able to determine whether the child suffered a legally cognizable injury. In this Note, the author both argues that California courts have applied inappropriate analysis to the wrongful life cause of action and proposes an alternative special verdict analysis.

Vegan Discrimination: An Emerging and Difficult Dilemma

by Sarah Soifer   

There are currently more than ten million Americans who consider themselves vegetarians. A subset of vegetarians, Ethical Vegans, are the strictest in their avoidance of meat and animal products. While Ethical Vegans are free to practice their beliefs, workplace discrimination against Ethical Vegans is a new and emerging phenomena. On September 17, 2002 , the California court of Appeal held that Ethical Veganism is not a religious creed within the meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In this Note, the author not only discusses the California Court of Appeal's decision, but she proposes that the courts use a more liberal test for what constitutes a religious creed.

Ignorance is Bliss: A Comment on Pavlovich v. Superior Court

by Gena M. Stinnett  

In this Comment, the author reviews the California Supreme Court's decision in Pavlovich v. Superior Court . Although the court ultimately ruled that the defendant's operation of a passive website did not subject him to the jurisdiction of California courts, the author presents a compelling argument for why operation of such websites may satisfy the "minimum contacts" requirements for specific personal jurisdiction through the Calder effects test , and why in this case, Pavlovich should have in fact been subjected to the jurisdiction of the California courts.

Damages Suits Under ERISA: Why Third Parties with Discretion Over Benefit Plans Must be Held Accountable

by John M. Teske  

When Congress enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), its primary goal was to provide protection to employees participating in health plans covered by the Act. The Act allows employees to bring civil actions to recover benefits due under their plans. However, several federal circuit courts have ruled that third-party insurers are not proper defendants in section 502(a)(1)(B) actions because they are not considered "plan administrators." Not allowing suits against insurers serves to deprive plan participants of their most direct and reliable avenue of relief. This Note asserts that courts should alleviate this anomalous result by redefining the scope of proper defendants under section 502(a)(1)(B) to include third-party insurers that have "discretionary authority" over employee benefit plans. Such a definition would further Congress's objective that the federal courts develop a uniform ERISA common law.