At page 298 cited at this page1 citing case
- Hawkins v. Pollard, No. 3:21-cv-01328 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022).Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1042 . 5 First, the plaintiff must “make an objective showing that the deprivation was ‘sufficiently 6 serious’ to form the basis for an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 7 U.S. at 298).
Other citing cases
- Robert Blassingill v. Waterman S.S. Corp., a Corp., 336 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1964).published
v.
McAllister
The error complained of is, that the circuit court did not give an opinion on a point proposed. The court was certainly bound to give an opinion, if z-equired, upon any point relevant to the issue.
It appears, from the facts stated, that the cause of action did not accrue until the 19th of November, when the negotiation for a compromise was broken off. A tender of the flour at any time after the 14th, and before the 19th, would have been a compliance with the contract. As the plaintiff claimed no more than the pzice of the flour on the 19th, and as the z-efusal of the court to instruct the jury did not alter the verdict, which was for the price on that day, and was for the same amount as if the opinion had been given, there is no error of which the defendants could complain.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.