there is “a strong public policy in the requirement of a FYLSX.”
How later courts described this case
- there is “a strong public policy in the requirement of a FYLSX.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, 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 Fresno [ 34 Cal.App.3d 813, 819 ( 110 Cal.Rptr. 262 )] (ante, p. 553).
Concerning the majority’s discussion of “a fundamental interest,” I still endorse the views set forth in Justice Mosk’s concurring opinion in Hawkins v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 584, 595-607 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 435 , 586 P.2d 916 ]