Bib'le v. Committee of Bar Examiners
California Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceNewman, J.
I concur in the result. I do not agree with the majority’s dicta concerning estoppel. In Packer v. Board of Behavioral Science Examiners [52 Cal.App.3d 190 (125 Cal.Rptr. 96)] (ante, p. 554), for example, there was no “detrimental reliance” (52 Cal.App. 3d at p. 196). And by no means am I persuaded that the First Year Law Student Examination exemplifies the kind of “strong rule of policy, adopted for the benefit of the public” that troubled the justices in Long Beach [3 Cal.3d 462, 493 (91 Cal.Rptr. 23, 476 P.2d 423)], San Diego [30 Cal.2d 817, 829-830 (186 P.2d 124, 175 A.L.R. 747)], and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Hawkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- County of San Diego v. California Water & Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
- Pettitt v. City of FresnoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Packer v. Board of Behavioral Science ExaminersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975