# Bib'le v. Committee of Bar Examiners

> California Supreme Court · February 26, 1980 · 26 Cal. 3d 548

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537472

## Case

- **Full name:** JOE T. BIB’LE, Petitioner, v. COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 26, 1980
- **Citations:** 26 Cal. 3d 548; 162 Cal. Rptr. 426; 606 P.2d 733; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 149
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537472

## Opinion text

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 ]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9537472. Public record. Not legal advice.