Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 5 P14 docx

“if I hadn’t known Goldwater, I’d have voted against the s.o.b. myself.” Goldwater was defeated by Johnson in a landslide, carrying only Arizona and five south- ern states. He was unapologetic about his “extremism” speech, saying, “Protecting freedom is what this country has been about. We’ll go to any extent to protect it. I know people were thinking ‘nuclear’ when I said [extremism,] but I think it had to be said, and I never lost any sleep over it.” The final irony, of course, is that Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, and it dragged on until 1973. According to Gold- water, Johnson’s Vietnam policy cost the country far more money and lives than if Goldwater, the supposed warmonger, had been elected. After his loss to Johnson, Goldwater returned to Arizona and private life. Although his defeat was stunning, and he was treated like a pariah by other Republicans, he was undaunted. “Politics has never been the making or breaking point of my life,” he said. “Iworkedhardtomake Arizona a better state and my country a better country. If I failed, I’ve taken the criticism.” He returned to politics in 1968 when he easily won the Senate seat vacated by retiring Democrat Carl Hayden. As an older and somewhat more moderate statesman, he relished his positions as chair of the ARMED SERVICES Committee, the Intelligence Committee, the Communications Subcommittee, and the Indian Affairs Commit- tee. He continued to work against big govern- ment and in favor of a free market economy. Summing up his opposition to federal control, he said, “All the great civilizations fell when people lost their initiative because government moved in to do things for them.” Goldwater served in the Senate for almost 20 additional years and left with his reputation and his convictions intact. “I was luckier than hell—politics is mostly luck—and I made a lot of friends,” he said. “It would be hard for me to name an enemy in Congress. People disagreed with me violently, but we remained very good friends.” In addition to a loyal conservative following, Goldwater’s friends included liberal Democrats Morris Udall, Daniel Inouye, EDWARD M . KENNEDY,WalterF.Mondale,andHUBERT H. HUMPHREY. One conservative Goldwater removed from his list of friends was RICHARD M. NIXON. Unable to accept Nixon’s failings or forgive his deceptions during the WATERGATE crisis, Gold- water called the scandal “one of the saddest moments of my life. For 20 years or so, he and I worked hand in glove all over this land—not to help Nixon, not to help Goldwater, but to help the Republican Party and our country. But I was slow to see the real Nixon.” Goldwater retired from the Senate when his term ended in 1987 and returned to his home in Paradise Valley, Arizona, overlooki ng Phoenix. He remained active, although slowed somewhat by arthritis. In the 1990s he took up an unlikely new cause: gay rights. “The big thing is to make this country quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay,” he asserted. “You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.” Always a strict constructionist when it came to the Constitu- tion, Goldwater felt that his defense of gay rights was consistent with his lifelon g devotion to individual freedom. Then governor of Oregon Barbara Roberts said that because peop le do not expect someone like Goldwater to speak up for gay rights, they look at the issue in a new light when he does. “He causes people to focus on the real issue,” she said. “Should the country that celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness allow DISCRIMINATION for a group of Americans based on sexual preference?” Gold- water’s position on gay rights put the former conservative standard-bearer squarely in con- flict with religious conservatives w ho opposed any effort to outlaw discrimination against homosexuals. Goldwater died at the age of 89 on May 29, 1998. He was a member of many organizations, including the Royal Photographic Society, the American Association of Indian Affairs, and the VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS. He was honorary cochairman of Americans against Discrimina- tion, a lobbying effort aimed at securing gay rights. He and his second wife, Susan Gold- water, lived in Paradise Valley, Arizona, at the time of his death. FURTHER READINGS Goldwater, Barry M. 1979. With No Apologies. New York: Morrow. Goldwater, Barry M., with Jack Casserly. 1988. Goldwater. New York: Doubleday. Perlstein, Rick. 2009. Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus. Washington, D.C.: Nation. CROSS REFERENCE Gay and Lesbian Rights. A GOVERNMENT THAT IS BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU ALL YOU WANT IS BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE IT ALL AWAY . —BARRY GOLDWATER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 118 GOLDWATER, BARRY MORRIS v GOMPERS, SAMUEL Samuel Gompers, a founding member and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), was instrumental in broadening the goals of the labor movement in the United States. He used his gifts as an organizer and speaker to consolidate numerous unions into one umbrella organization that lobbied success- fully for improved working conditions for all tradesmen. The son of Dutch immigrants, Gompers was born in London on January 26, 1850. He attended school briefly but began working at age 10. Initially apprenticed to a shoemaker, he chose instead to become a cigarmaker like his father. The family moved to New York in 1863, and within a year Gompers had joined the Cigar Makers’ National Union. At around this time many trades were beginning to form unions, but their power was limited because as small, individual groups they had little clout. By the 1880s, leaders of the various unions decided that by uniting in common cause they would make for a stronger political force. Late in 1881, several unions joined together to form the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (FOTLU). Gompers, who had proven himself an able leader in the cigarmakers’ union, was elected an officer of FOTLU. FOTLU was a first step for organizing unions but it was too loosely connected to have any real influence. In 1886 FOTLU was restructured into the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and Gompers was elected presi- dent. Except for a one-year hiatus in 1895, Gompers remained AFL president for the rest of his life. As AFL president, Gompers steered the organization toward practical goals. He was interested in securing living wages for union members, an eight-hour work day, comprehen- sive CHILD LABOR LAWS, equal pay for women and men, and compulsory school attendance for children. To that end, he lobbied tirelessly for these and other improvements for working men and women. Gompers steered clear of political issues (although in 1899 the AFL did endorse women’s suffrage). Many left-wing labor leaders thought that Gompers was too timid and ineffective, too tied to the mainstream. Anarchist EMMA Samuel Gompers. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Samuel Gompers 1850–1924 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18501850 19251925 19001900 18751875 ◆ ❖ ◆ ❖ ◆ ◆ 1914–18 World War I 1924 Died, San Antonio, Tex. 1896–1924 President of American Federation of Labor 1886–94 President of American Federation of Labor 1917 Chaired Council of National Defense advisory committee 1919 Helped create International Labor Organization (ILO) at Treaty of Versailles negotiations 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act signed into law 1876 Granger cases decided 1861–65 Civil War 1850 Born, London, England I WONDER WHETHER ANY OF US CAN IMAGINE WHAT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE WORKING PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY TODAY WITHOUT THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO PROTECT THEM . —SAMUEL GOMPERS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GOMPERS, SAMUEL 119 GOLDMAN wrote that the AFL had not “grasped the social abyss which separates labor from its masters, an abyss which can never be bridged by the struggle for mere material gains.” But under Gompers’s leadership, labor made significant sustainable gains at the state and federal level. Workers’ compensation laws were enacted to assist those injured on the job; wages were raised; and the eight-hour day became law for a growing number of workers (including federal employees in 1912). In 1913, the federal government created the LABOR DEPARTMENT, and, in 1914, it passed the Clayton Antitrust Act, which protected union members from prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act. That same year, industrialist Henry Ford initiated the eight-hour workday (at $5 per day) at his automobile plant. When the United States entered WORLD WAR I in 1917, Gompers chaired an advisory commit- tee of the Council of National Defense, which was created to coordinate industry and resources in wartime, and called on employers and employees to stand united and not take advantage of the war to make unreasonable demands. He traveled to Europe during the war to examine labor conditions, and after the war, in 1919, he attended the negotiations for the TREATY OF VERSAILLES, where he was instrumental in the creation of the International Labor Organization (ILO). He attended the Congress of the Pan-American federation of Labor in Mexico City in December 1924. He collapsed on December 8 and was brought to San Antonio, Texas, where he died on December 13. FURTHER READINGS Goldman, Emma. 1925. “Samuel Gompers.” In The Road to Freedom. The Emma Goldman Papers, Vol. 1, March. Available online at http://www.sunsite.berkeley.edu/ Goldman/Writings/Essays/gompers.html; http://www. sunsite.berkeley.edu (accessed July 27, 2009). Kaufman, Stuart Bruce. 1973. Samuel Gompers and the Origins of the American Federation of Labor. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Mandel, Bernard. 1980. Samuel Gompers: A Biography. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch. CROSS REFERENCES Craft Union; Industrial Union; Labor Union; Trade Union. v GONZALES, ALBERTO R. Alberto R. Gonzales served as U.S. attorney general from 2005 to 2007. GEORGE W. BUSH tapped Gonzales to the position to succeed JOHN ASHCROFT , and upon his confirmation, Gonzales became the first Hispanic American to serve as U.S. attorney general. Several controversies arose during Gonzales’s tenure, leading to his resignation on September 17, 2007. Born August 4, 1955, in San Antonio, Texas, Gonzales grew up in Houston. Neither of his parents finished elementary school, and Gonzales’s father died from a work accident in 1982. After graduating from high school, Gonzales joined the U.S. Air Force. While he was stationed in Alaska, two Air Force Academy graduates told him he should seek an appoint- ment to the academy. Gonzales ente red the academy, but soon found out that his vision was no longer good enough to become a pilot. As a result, he turned his attention to a career in law and applied to Rice University, from which he graduated in 1979. Gonzales was the first in his family to attend college, but he did not stop there. Upon graduation, he went on to Harvard Law School. He then joined the firm of Vinson and Elkins and practiced general corporate business law with the firm for the next thirteen years. In 1990 Gonzales gained the attention of Bush’s father, president GEORGE H. W. BUSH, but Gonzales declined a job offer at the White House to remain in private practice and focus on making partner at the law firm. However, when the younger Bush offered him the opportunity to be legal counsel for the governor five years later, Gonzales accepted. Over the next five years, Bush showed strong support for Gonzales, eventually appointing him as Texas SECRETARY OF STATE and then as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. There was little doubt that Gonzales had become part of Bush’s innermost circle when Bush called on Gonzales again, in 2000, to serve as the White House counsel. Traditionally, the counsel to the White House garners little media attention unless there is a scandal. As described by Daniel Klaidman and Tamara Lipper in Newsweek, “the president’s lawyer typically offers discreet advice on legislation and helps the White House staff steer clear of ethical land mines.” Gonzales came to public attention with his efforts to prevent details of Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy commission from being revealed. More notoriously, his memo on the torture of prisoners taken in the so-called war on terror, which described the Geneva Con- ventions as “quaint” and “obsolete,” raised GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 120 GONZALES, ALBERTO R. strong opposition from the left, whose members felt that such comments were in part responsi- ble for the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq. Gonzales also cleared a JUSTICE DEPARTMENT memo that stated that the president was not bound by laws against torture when incarcerat- ing people described as “enemy combatants.” After the resignation of John Ashcroft following Bush’s 2004 election victory, Bush nominated Gonzales in November 2004 to take the position of attorney general. Senate Demo- crats on the Judiciary Committee challenged his confirmation and unanimously voted against his nomination. However, the full Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of 60-36. At the time of his appointment, Gonzales was seen as a more moderate appointment than Ashcroft, as Gonzales was not opposed to AFFIRMATIVE ACTION or ABORTION , two subjects of particular Republican objection. In 2005 and 2006, Gonzales led an eventu- ally successful effort to advocate the reauthori- zation of the USA PATRIOT Act. However, his position with regard to civil rights in relation to national security continued to cause a stir. The New York Times in 2005 reported that Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless searches on individuals within the United States. Gonzales responded to the report by noting that the program was supported by the broad war powers given to Bush following the 2001 terrorist attacks. In July 2006 Gonzales testified before the Senate that Bush had blocked the Justice Department from investigating the spy- ing program. Gonzales was one of the govern- ment officials who had authority to review the program every 45 days. Facing pressure from Congress, Gonzales in 2007 announced that the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program woul d be reviewed by a secret national intelligence court. In addition to the controversy surrounding Gonzales’ handling of the eavesdropping pro- gram, Gonzales became embroiled in a dispute over the sudden dismissal of several U.S. attorneys. He reportedly met in November 2006 to discuss the dismissal of eight prosec u- tors in a plan approved by the White House about a week later. On December 7, 2006, the Justice Department dismissed these eight attor- neys, providing no reason for the firings. Alberto Gonzales. AP IMAGES ▼▼ ▼▼ ❖ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ 2000 1975 1955 ◆ Alberto R. Gonzales 1955– 1955 Born, San Antonio, Texas 1973–75 Served in the U.S. Air Force 1982 Graduated from Harvard Law School 1995–97 Served as general counsel for then-Governor George W. Bush 1997–99 Served as Texas Secretary of State 1999 Appointed to Supreme Court of Texas; named Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association 2001 Left Court to serve as White House counsel for then-President George W. Bush 2003 Received President’s Award from the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 1961–73 Vietnam War 2001 September 11 terrorist attacks; PATRIOT Act signed into law 2005 Appointed first Hispanic attorney general of the United States 2007 Resigned as attorney general amid controversy regarding government eavesdropping program 2009 Joined Texas Tech University as diversity recruiter ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GONZALES, ALBERTO R. 121 Reports later showed that the majority of those who were dismissed were given favorable evaluations during the periods of time that they held their positions. As the controversy contin- ued to heat up, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty testified that the attorneys were dismissed due to poor performance rather than political reasons. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) led an investigation into the attorneys’ firings. He criticized the Justice Department for what he concluded were politically motivated decisions. Calls for Gonzales’s resignation became more prevalent in March 2007. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the top Republican on the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ,openlyquestionedwhetherGonzales’s tenure as attorney general had run its course. Another Republican, Senator John Sununu (R-NH), openly called for Gonzales’s resignation. Gonzales responded to allegations about the dismissal of the attorneys by noting that though he should be held accountable, he was not involved with seeing memos or with other discussions about the proposed firings. About two months later, evidence surfaced that Gonzales indeed saw memos about the firings and had consulted with aides prior to the dismissals. Moreover, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified that in 2004 Gonzalez had pressured then attorney general Ashcroft to approve the eavesdropping pro- gram. This occurred while Ashcroft was hospi- talized in an intensive-care unit. Congressional Democrats stepped up their efforts to pressure Gonzales to resign. House and Senate members i ntroduced no- confidence votes in both chambers of Con- gress. Nonetheless, Bush continued to express support for Gonzales. Amid accusations of PERJURY for his earlier testimony, however, Gonzales finally gave in and announced his resignation on August 27, 2007 . Bush claimed that Gonzales’s name had been “dragged through the mud for political r easons,” but even some Republican lawmakers said that the time for the resignation had come. Gonzales gave numerous speeches during the two years following his resignation, but he reportedly had difficulty finding a position at a law firm. In July 2009 Texas Tech University announced that it had hired Gonzales to serve as diversity recruiter. He was also scheduled to teach a political science course. FURTHER READINGS Johnston, David. 2007. “Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Praised in Evaluations.” New York Times. February 25. Myers, Steven Lee, and Philip Shenon. 2007. “Embattled Attorney General Resigns.” New York Times. August 27. GOOD BEHAVIOR Orderly and lawful action; conduct that is deemed proper for a peaceful and law-abiding indivi dual. The definition of good behavior depends upon how the phrase is used. For example, what constitutes good behavior for an elected public officer may be quite different from that expected of a prisoner who wants to have his or her sentence reduced or to earn privileges. The CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES provides that federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, which means that they cannot be discharged but can be impeached for misconduct. GOOD CAUSE Legally adequate or substantial grounds or reason to take a certain action. The term good cause is a relative one and is dependent upon the circumstances of each individual case. For example, a party in a legal action who wants to do something after a particular STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS has expired must show good cause, or justification for needing additional time. A serious illness or accident might, for example, constitute good cause. An employee is said to be discharged for good cause if the reasons f or the termination are work related. However, if the employer simply did not like the employee’s personality, this would not ordinarily constitute good cause, unless the employee held a position, such as a salesperson, for which a likable personality was required. GOOD FAITH Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others. Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or MOTIVE without any MALICE or the desire to DEFRAUD others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term BONA FIDE, and courts use the two terms interchangeably. The term good faith is used in many areas of the law but has special significance in COMMER- CIAL LAW . A good faith purchaser for value is YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN , LOOKING AT PRECEDENT , IN TRYING TO ANTICIPATE WHERE THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO DRAW THE BALANCE BETWEEN THE PROTECTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PROTECTING THE NATIONAL SECURITY , AND IN SOME CASES WE GUESSED WRONG . —ALBERTO GONZALES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 122 GOOD BEHAVIOR protected by the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, which every state has adopted. Under sections 1-201(9) and 2-403 of the code, a merchant may keep possession of goods that were bought from a seller who did not have title to the goods, if the merchant can show he or she was a good faith purchaser for value. To meet this test, the person must be a merchant, must have demonstrated honesty in the conduct of the transaction concerned, and must have observed reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade. A buyer would likely meet these requirements if the purchase proceeded in the ordinary course of business. If, on the other hand, the purchase took place under unusual or suspicious circumstances, a court might con- clude that the buyer lacked good faith. Where a nonmerchant purchases property that the seller lacks LEGAL TITLE to convey, the issue of good faith is known both as the INNOCENT PURCHASER doctrine and as the bona fide purchaser doctrine. If the purchaser acquires the property by an honest contract or agreement and without knowledge of any defect in the title of the seller, or means of knowledge sufficient to charge the buyer with such knowledge, the purchaser is deemed innocent. In both commercial and noncommercial law, persons who in good faith pay a FRAUDULENT seller VALUABLE CONSIDERATION for property are protected from another person who claims legal title to the property. If a court establishes the purchaser’s good faith defense, the person who claims title has recourse only against the fraudulent seller. Strong PUBLIC POLICY is behind the good faith defense. Good faith doctrines enhance the flow of goods in commerce, as under them, buyers are not required, in the ordinary course of business, to go to extraordi- nary efforts to determine whether sellers actually have good title. A purchaser can move quickly to close a deal with the knowledge that a fraudulent seller and a legitimate titleholder will have to sort the issue out in court. Of course, the purchaser will be required to demonstrate to the court evidence of good faith. Good faith is also central to the COMMERCIAL PAPER (checks, drafts, promissory notes, certifi- cates of deposit) concept of a HOLDER IN DUE COURSE . A holder is a person who takes an instrument, such as a check, subject to the reasonable belief that it will be paid and that there are no legal reasons why payment will not occur. If the holder has taken the check for value and in good faith believes the check to be good, she or he is a holder in due course, with sole right to recover paymen t. If, on the other hand, the holder accepts a check that has been dishonored (stamped with terms such as “insufficient funds,”“account closed,” and “payment stopped”), she or he has knowledge that something is wrong with the check and therefore cannot ALLEGE the check was accepted in the good faith belief that it was valid. In LABOR LAW, the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) mandates good faith bargaining by every union and employer in order to reach agreement. In corporate law, the BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE is based on good faith. This principle makes officers, directors, managers, and other agents of a corporation immune from liability to the corporation for losses incurred in corporate transactions that are within their authority and power to make, when sufficient evidence demonstrates that those transactions were made in good faith. As in commercial law, the use of good faith in this case enhances corporate business practices, as agents of a corporation are free to act quickly, decisively, and some- times wrongly to advance the interests of the corporation. Good faith insulates corporate officers from disgruntled shareholders. FURTHER READINGS Bristow, David I., and Reva Seth. 2000–2001. “Good Faith in Negotiations.” Dispute Resolution Journal 55 (November- January). Available online at http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_qa3923/is_200011/ai_n8963898/; website home page: http://findarticles.com (accessed July 2 7, 2009). Carter, Roger L. 2002. “Oh, Ye of Little (Good) Faith: Questions, Concerns and Commentary on Efforts to Regulate Participant Conduct in Mediations.” Journal of Dispute Resolution 2002 (fall). Compliance News. Available online at http://www. compliancenews.com/ (accessed September 4, 2009). GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE A principle of tort law that provides that a person who sees another individual in imminent and serious danger or peril cannot be charged with negligence if that first person attempts to aid or rescue the injured party, provided the attempt is not made recklessly. The Good Samaritan doctrine is used by rescuers to avoid civil LIABILITY for injuries arising from their NEGLIGENCE. Its purpose is to encourage emergency assistance by removing GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE 123 the threat of liability for damage done by the assistance. However, the assistance must be reasonable; a rescuer cannot benefit from the Good Samaritan doctrine if the assistance is reckless or grossly negligent. Three key elements support a successful invocation of the Good Samaritan doctrine: (1) the care rendered was performed as the result of the emergency, (2) the initial emergency or injury was not caused by the person invoking the defense, and (3) the emergency care was not given in a grossly negligent or reckless manner. Assume that a person has slipped on ice and broken a vertebra. The victim is uncon- scious, the accident has occurred in a d esolate area, and the weather is dangerously cold. A passerby finds the injured person and moves the person to warmth and safety, but in the process aggravates the spinal injury. In a civil suit by the victim seeking damages for the additional injury, the passerby may succes sfully defeat the claims un der the Good Samaritan doctrine. The Good Samaritan doctrine is also used as a defense by persons who act to prevent or contain property damage. Assume that a passer- by notices a fire has started just outside a cabin in the wilderness. If the passerby breaks into the cabin to look for a fire extinguisher, the passerby will not be liable for damage resulting from the forced entry. However, if the passerby runs down the cabin with a bulldozer to extinguish the fire, this will probably be considered grossly negligent or reckless, and the Good Samaritan doctrine will not provide protection from a civil suit for damages to the cabin. The line separating negligence from GROSS NEGLIGENCE or RECKLESSNESS is often thin. Hard- ingham v. United Counseling Service of Benning- ton County, 672 A. 2d 480 (Vt. 1995), illustrates the negligent acts that the Good Samaritan doctrine protects. In this case, the PLAINTIFF, David Hardingham, sued United Counseling Service (UCS) when he became blind after drinking windshield wiper fluid. Hardingham, a recovering alcoholic, was employed by UCS as an emergency services counselor. When Harding- ham began drinking again, employees of UCS went to his apartment and discovered him in an inebriated condition. During their visit, they saw Hardingham drink windshield wiper fluid. They called the police, who took Hardingham to a hospital. At the hospital, none of the UCS workers informed medical authorities that Hard- ingham had drunk the dangerous fluid. Doctors did not learn until the next day that Hardingham had overdosed on methanol, a component of windshield wiper fluid, and Hardingham even- tually lost his sight. Hardingham never got a chance to present his case to a jury. The Chittenden Superior Court granted SUMMARY JUDGMENT to UCS, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support an ALLEGATION of gross negligence by the organization. The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed this decision. According to the court, the actions of the defendants “probably saved plaintiff’s life.” Although the defendants may have been negligent in failing to disclose that Hardingham had swallowed enough methanol to threaten his life, “no REASONABLE PERSON could conclude that defendants showed indifference to plaintiff or failed to exercise even a slight degree of care.” Justice John Dooley dissented, arguing that the case presented a QUESTION OF FACT for a jury to decide. The defendants “failed to tell the emergency room physician the most signifi- cant fact that wasn’t obvious from plaintiff’s condition—that plaintiff had consumed wind- shield wiper fluid.” Dooley lamented that “the greatest difficulty plaintiff faces in this case is to persuade us to accept that ‘good samaritans’ should ever be liable.” Section 324 of the Second Restatement of Torts describes the Good Samaritan doctrine in an inverse fashion. According to section 324, a person is subject to liability for physical harm resulting from the failure to exercise reasonable care if the failure increases the risk of harm, if the rescuer has a duty to render care, or if others are relying on the rescuer. Many states are content to follow the Good Samaritan doctrine through their COMMON LAW or through similar previous cases. Some states have general statutes mandating the doctrine. Utah, for example, has a Good Samaritan act, which provides in part that [a] person who renders emergency care at or near the scene of, or during an emergency, gratuitously and in GOOD FAITH, is not liable for any civil damages or penalties as a result of any act or omission by the person rendering the emergency care, unless the person is grossly negligent or caused the emergency. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-11-22). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 124 GOOD SAMARITAN DOCTRINE Some states have enacted statutes that protect specific emergency care or assistance. Indiana, for example, protects the em ergency care of veterinarians (Ind. Code § 15-5-1.1-31). Alabama provides IMMUNITY to those who assist or advise in the mitigation of the effects of the discharge of haz ardous materials (Ala. Code § 6-5-332.1). Some states also provide protection to those participating in the cleanup of oil spills. In 1990, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act (Pub. L. No. 101-380, 33 U.S.C.A. §§ 2701– 2761 [1994]), which gave immunity from liability to persons who participate in oil cleanup efforts. Like any Good Samaritan law, the statute does not protect a person who is grossly negligent or reckless. FURTHER READINGS Crawley, Annette Teichert. 1993. “Environmental Auditing and the ‘Good Samaritan’ Doctrine: Implications for Parent Corporations.” Georgia Law Review 28 (fall). Landes, William M., and Richard A. Posner. 2001. “Harmless Error.” Journal of Legal Studies 30 (January). Available online at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/ files/101.WML_.Harmless.pdf; website home page: http://www.law.uchicago.edu (accessed July 27, 2009). White, Christopher H. 2002. “No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Case for Reform of the Rescue Doctrine.” Northwestern Univ. Law Review 97 (fall). GOOD TIME The amount of time deducted from time to be served in prison on a given sentence, at some point after the prisoner’s admission to prison, contingent upon good behavior or awarded automatically by the application of a statute or regulation. Good time can be forfeited for misbehavior. In some jurisdictions, prisoners may not earn good time during their first year of their sentence. GOOD WILL The favorable reputation and clientele of an established and well-run business. The value of good will is ordinarily deter- mined as the amount a purchaser will pay for a business beyond the monetary value of its tangible property and money owed to it. Good will is regarded as a prop erty interest in and of itself, although it exists only in connection with other property, such as the name or location of the operation. Good will exists even in a situation where the business is not operating at a profit. Certain courts refuse to recognize good will that arises out of the personal qualities of the owner. For example, a physician cannot sell good will when selling the office building and other physical assets of his or her practice, because the physician’s reputa- tion is based solely upon personal professional abilities. A transfer of good will from one individual to another can take place as a bequest in a will or through a sale. Ordinarily, when an individual sells the property to which good will is connected, it is automatically transferred to the buyer. However, the buyer and seller can alter this arrangement or specify details in their sale agreement. A former owner of a business has no right to interfere with the subsequent owner’s enjoyment of good will following a sale transfer- ring good will, even in the event that the sales contract does not specifically so indicate. In the event that the purchaser wants to prevent the seller from establishing a competing business in the same vicinity, the purchaser must bargain for such a provision in the contract. An agreement not to compete, sometimes called RESTRICTIVE COVENANT , differs from good will. However, an individual who sells the good will of his or her business is not permitted to solicit former clients or customers or lead them to believe that he or she is still running the same business. GOODS Items; chattels; things; any personal property. Goods is a term of flexible context and meaning and extends to all tangible items. v GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. He has been a reporte r, an environmentalist, a congressman, and served as vice PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES , but Al Gore may go down in history as the unsuccessful candidate in possibly the most conteste d presidential race the United States has ever seen. Having spent the majority of his life in the political ring, Gore made two unsuccessful bids for the presidency. The first came in 1988, when he was a fledgling senator; the second was in 2000, following two terms as vice president under BILL CLINTON.Inthe protracted 2000 race, Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to GEORGE W. BUSH. He became the third candidate in history to receive the greatest share of the popular vote, but lose the presidency. In 2002 Gore an- nounced that he would not try for the office a GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. 125 third time, claiming, “there are many other exciting ways to serve.” Gore was born in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 1948. His father, Albert Gore Sr., at the time served as a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Tennessee. The senior Gore was to serve in the House and the Senate for nearly three decades. His mother was Pauline LaFon Gore. She had the distinc- tion of being one of the first women to gra duate from the law school at Vanderbilt University. Gore attended St. Alban’s Episcopal School for Boys in Washington, D.C., where he was an honor student and captain of the football team. In 1969 he received a B.A. with honors in government from Harvard University. He was interested in becoming a writer, rather than following his father’s footsteps as a politician. After graduation he enlisted in the army, although he opposed the intervention of the United States in the VIETNAM WAR. While stationed in Vietnam, Gore served as an army reporter. After Gore left the military service in 1971, the Nashville Tennessean hired him as an investigative reporter and, later, as an editorial writer. In addition to his journalism career, Gore was a home builder, a land developer, and a livestock and tobacco farmer. Gore married his college sweetheart, Mary Elizabeth “Tipper” Aitcheson, in 1970. Tipper Gore holds a B.A. degree from Boston Univer- sity and an M.A. in psychology from George Peabody College at Vanderbilt University. She is actively involved in a number of issues, including AIDS, education, and homelessness. She has also has been a longtime advocate for mental health, and gained national attention in the 1980s through her efforts to influence the record industry to rate and label obscene and violent lyrics. She was cofounder of the Parents’ Music Resource Center, which monitors musi- cal and video presentation s that glorify casual sex and violence. The Gores have four children: Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III. Interested in RELIGION and philosophy, Gore enrolled in the Graduate School of Religion at Vanderbilt University during the 1971–72 academic year. In 1974, he entered Vanderbilt’s law school but left to enter elective office two years later. In 1976 Gore ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. He won the primary election against eight other candidates and went on to win in the general election. He ran successfully in the three following elections. Gore claimed some early attention in 1980 when he was assigned to study nuclear arms as a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Al Gore. AP IMAGES Albert Arnold Gore Jr. 1948– ▼▼ ▼▼ 2000 1975 1950 ❖ ◆ 1948 Born, Washington, D.C. 1974–76 Postgraduate studies at Vanderbilt University Law School 1977–85 U.S. Representative from Tennessee 1985–93 U.S. Senator from Tennessee 1993–2000 Served as vice president under Bill Clinton ◆◆◆◆ 2000 Unsuccessful run for president after losing controversial election to George W. Bush 2000 U.S. Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision halted presidential vote recount in Florida 1961–73 Vietnam War 1950–53 Korean War 2005 Co-founded CurrentTV 2006 An Inconvenient Truth released, later won Academy Award for Best Documentary 2007 Awarded Nobel Peace Prize for environmental work GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 126 GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. He researched and eventually published a comprehensive manifesto on arms restructuring for future security, which was published in the February 1982 issue of Congressional Quarterly. In 1984, Gore campaigned for a seat in the U.S. Senate that had just become vacant. He won that office with a large margin of votes. While in Congress, Gore focused on several issues, including health care and environmental reform. He worked for nuclear ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT , as well as other strategic defense issues. He also stressed the potential of new technologies, such as biotechnology and computer development. As the decade came to a close, Gore set his sights on the race for the 198 8 presidential election. Only 39 years old at the time, he ran on traditional domestic Democratic views and was tough on foreign policy issues. He failed, however, to develop a national theme for his campaign and was criticized for changing positions on issues. Gore was successful in gaining public support in the primaries during the early spring and won more votes than any other candidate in southern states. However, he obtained only sm all percentages of votes in other states and withdrew from the presidential nomination campaigns in mid-April. Two years later Gore won election to a second term in the U.S. Senate. He chose not to seek the presidency in 1992, citing family concerns (his son Albert had been hit by an automobile and was seriously injured). It was during this time that Gore wrote the book Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, which expressed his concern, ideas, and recom - mendations on conservation and the global environment. In the book he wrote about his own personal and political experiences and legislative actions on the environmental issue. One of Gore’s statements in the book that sums up his philosophy regarding the environment and human interaction is, “We must make the rescue of the environment the central organiz- ing principle for civilization.” In the summer of 1992, Bill Clinton selected Gore as his vice presidential nominee. The choice startled many people because it ended a long- standing pattern of a candidate choosing a vice presidential nominee to “balance the ticket.” Both men were of the same age, region, and reputation and moderate in political outlook. Gore did balance Clinton’s strength, however, by bringing to the ticket his experience in foreign and defense policy, expertise in environmental and new technology matters, and an image as an unwavering family man. Clinton and Gore won the election in 1992, and Gore was inaugurated as the 45th vice president on January 20, 1993. At the age of 44 years, he became one of the youngest people to hold the position. Clinton and Gore were reelected in 1996, running against Republicans Bob Dole and Jack Kemp. During his time as vice president, Gore continued to stress environmental concerns. In 1997, the White House launched an effort to start producing a report card on the health of the nation’s ecosystems. This project was carried out by an environmental think tank and initiated by Gore. That same year, however, Gore’s reputation was somewhat tarnished when he was accused of and admitted to making fund-raising telephone calls from the White House during the 1996 presidential campaign. Gore held a press confer- ence on March 3, 1997, to defend his actions, saying there was nothing illegal about what he had done, although he admitted it may not have been a wise choice. Gore was also criticized for toasting Li Peng, initiator of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, during a trip to China. In September 1997 Buddhist nuns testified before the Senate panel investigating the abuses of campaign fund- raising. The nuns admitted that donors were illegally reimbursed by their temple following a fund-raiser attended by Gore, and that they had destroyed or altered records to avoid embarras- sing their temple. Some believe these incidents further damaged Gore’sreputation. Despite questions of impropriety, Gore announced his candidacy for president in 1999. By early 2000 he had secured the majority of Democratic dele gates for the 2000 elections. Gore chose Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieber- man as his running mate to face Texas governor George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, former secretary of defense. Although Bush took an early lead in the polls, the Gore campaign closed the gap. Gore sought not only to demonstrate his compassion in a variety of speeches, but also to distance hims elf from Clinton. As the November 7 election approached, most obser- vers predicted a deadlock. During the afternoon of November 7, 2000, it appeared as if Gore would win the election, NO MATTER HOW HARD THE LOSS , DEFEAT MIGHT SERVE AS WELL AS VICTORY TO SHAKE THE SOUL AND LET THE GLORY OUT . —AL GORE GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION GORE, ALBERT ARNOLD, JR. 127 . Gompers. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Samuel Gompers 1 850 –1924 ▼▼ ▼▼ 1 850 1 850 19 251 9 25 19001900 18 751 8 75 ◆ ❖ ◆ ❖ ◆ ◆ 1914–18 World War I 1924 Died, San Antonio, Tex. 1896–1924 President of American Federation of Labor 1886–94 President. IMAGES ▼▼ ▼▼ ❖ ◆◆ ◆ ◆◆◆ 2000 19 75 1 955 ◆ Alberto R. Gonzales 1 955 – 1 955 Born, San Antonio, Texas 1973– 75 Served in the U.S. Air Force 1982 Graduated from Harvard Law School 19 95 97 Served as general counsel. GOLDWATER GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 118 GOLDWATER, BARRY MORRIS v GOMPERS, SAMUEL Samuel Gompers, a founding member and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor