This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Letters

Feb. 12, 2024

Taking issue with judges’ ruling that the State had no contract with Hastings Law founder

The Superior Court erred in sustaining demurrers to the complaint in Hastings College Conservation Committee v. Faigman because the complaint stated a valid cause of action for breach of contract between S.C. Hastings and the State of California over the name of the law school.

Kris Whitten

Retired California deputy attorney gener,

The news story: “State made no contract with Hastings Law founder, judge rules,” Daily Journal, Feb. 7, concerns erroneously sustained demurrers in the litigation over the changing of the name of the former Hastings College of the Law. All demurrers were sustained without leave to amend, thus preventing even the limited discovery permitted in conjunction with summary judgment motions. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(h).

Missing from that st...

To continue reading, please subscribe.

Already a subscriber?