absence of prejudicial error in California

18 California opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2023 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
Tyler v. Children's Home Soc'y of Californiagreen calctapp · 1994 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023(Tyler v. Children’s Home Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 526, fn. 7 ; Balding v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. 2023(Tyler v. Children’s Home Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 526, fn. 7 ; Balding v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R.	2	2
People v. Newlandgreen cal · 1940 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1945–1957 2 sentences 1957The reviewing court will not determine the weight of the evidence but will approve the judgment unless it concludes that “under no hypothesis could sufficient facts have been found by the jury to warrant the inference of guilt.” (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]. 1957The reviewing court will not determine the weight of the evidence but will approve the judgment unless it concludes that “under no hypothesis could sufficient facts have been found by the jury to warrant the inference of guilt.” (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].	2	2
People v. Cheekgreen cal · 2001 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006(Cf. People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898, 903 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 , 24 P.3d 1204 ] [SVP appeal moot where commitment term expired during pendency of appeal].) We affirm the recommitment on Petition 2 because of an absence of prejudicial error in the 53 proceedings below. 2006(Cf. People v. Cheek (2001) 25 Cal.4th 894, 897-898, 903 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 181 , 24 P.3d 1204 ] [SVP appeal moot where commitment term expired during pendency of appeal].) We affirm the recommitment on Petition 2 because of an absence of prejudicial error in the 53 proceedings below.	1	1
Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.green calctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001(Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 ].) As any error here was harmless, the trial court’s ruling was correct. 2001(Sherman v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1161 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 641 ].) As any error here was harmless, the trial court’s ruling was correct.	1	1
Schmedding v. Schmeddinggreen calctapp · 1966 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1966–1966 2 sentences 1966In the absence of prejudicial error of law or violence to reason, it is the duty of an appellate court to uphold the trial court (Schmedding v. Schmedding, 240 Cal.App.2d 312, 314-315 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 523 ] ; Crawford v. Southern Pac. 1966In the absence of prejudicial error of law or violence to reason, it is the duty of an appellate court to uphold the trial court (Schmedding v. Schmedding, 240 Cal.App.2d 312, 314-315 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 523 ] ; Crawford v. Southern Pac.	1	1
People v. Von Bensongreen calctapp · 1940 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956 2 sentences 1956(People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.2d 721, 727 [ 221 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434 [ 101 P.2d 527 ].) Appellant insists that the People’s failure to introduce into evidence the fingerprints on the lock, or proof that it had no fingerprints, brings into play the presumption (Code Civ. 1956(People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.2d 721, 727 [ 221 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434 [ 101 P.2d 527 ].) Appellant insists that the People’s failure to introduce into evidence the fingerprints on the lock, or proof that it had no fingerprints, brings into play the presumption (Code Civ.	1	1
People v. Gutierrezgreen cal · 1950 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1956–1956 2 sentences 1956(People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.2d 721, 727 [ 221 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434 [ 101 P.2d 527 ].) Appellant insists that the People’s failure to introduce into evidence the fingerprints on the lock, or proof that it had no fingerprints, brings into play the presumption (Code Civ. 1956(People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.2d 721, 727 [ 221 P.2d 22 ]; People v. Von Benson, 38 Cal.App.2d 431, 434 [ 101 P.2d 527 ].) Appellant insists that the People’s failure to introduce into evidence the fingerprints on the lock, or proof that it had no fingerprints, brings into play the presumption (Code Civ.	1	1
Herbert's Laurel-Ventura Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp.green calctapp · 1943 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1946–1946 2 sentences 1946(Herbert’s Laurel-Ventura, Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp., 58 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 138 P.2d 43 ] ; Lorraine v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.App.2d 27, 30 [ 130 P.2d 140 ].) Finally, it is contended that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Mrs. Reuss hy whom appellants sought to prove a telephonic conversation with the doctor, contradictory of the latter’s previous testimony that he had not had such a conversation. 1946(Herbert’s Laurel-Ventura, Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp., 58 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 138 P.2d 43 ] ; Lorraine v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.App.2d 27, 30 [ 130 P.2d 140 ].) Finally, it is contended that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Mrs. Reuss hy whom appellants sought to prove a telephonic conversation with the doctor, contradictory of the latter’s previous testimony that he had not had such a conversation.	1	1
Lorraine v. City of Los Angelesgreen calctapp · 1942 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1946–1946 1 sentence 1946(Herbert’s Laurel-Ventura, Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp., 58 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 138 P.2d 43 ] ; Lorraine v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.App.2d 27, 30 [ 130 P.2d 140 ].) Finally, it is contended that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Mrs. Reuss hy whom appellants sought to prove a telephonic conversation with the doctor, contradictory of the latter’s previous testimony that he had not had such a conversation.	1	1
People v. Pruittgreen calctapp · 1942 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1945–1945 2 sentences 1945(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 765 [ 297 P. 17 ]; People v. Pruitt, 55 Cal.App.2d 272, 275 [ 130 P.2d 767 ].) Conflicts in evidence are of no concern to the reviewing court. 1945(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 765 [ 297 P. 17 ]; People v. Pruitt, 55 Cal.App.2d 272, 275 [ 130 P.2d 767 ].) Conflicts in evidence are of no concern to the reviewing court.	1	1
People v. Borregogreen cal · 1931 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1945–1945 2 sentences 1945(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 765 [ 297 P. 17 ]; People v. Pruitt, 55 Cal.App.2d 272, 275 [ 130 P.2d 767 ].) Conflicts in evidence are of no concern to the reviewing court. 1945(People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ]; People v. Borrego, 211 Cal. 759, 765 [ 297 P. 17 ]; People v. Pruitt, 55 Cal.App.2d 272, 275 [ 130 P.2d 767 ].) Conflicts in evidence are of no concern to the reviewing court.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz green calctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2022(See Shaw, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 281 .) Accordingly, we conclude in the absence of prejudicial error that Calvary Chapel’s claim of evidentiary error lacks merit. 32 IV. 2022(See Shaw, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 281 .) Accordingly, we conclude in the absence of prejudicial error that Calvary Chapel’s claim of evidentiary error lacks merit. 32 IV.	2	2022–2022
City of Los Angeles v. Decker green cal · 1977 1 sentence 2014(City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 872 .) V THE CITY’S APPEAL CONCERNING WILBUR-ELLIS Because we affirm the judgment in favor of Shell, there is no basis for liability against Wilbur-Ellis.	1	2014–2014
Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. green cal · 1935 2 sentences 1966Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]). 1966Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]).	1	1966–1966
People v. Ames green calctapp · 1957 2 sentences 1959In 1957, these concepts were reiterated in People v. Ames, 151 Cal.App.2d 714 [ 312 P.2d 1111 ] (hearing by the Supreme Court denied): “A conviction by the trial court is, in the absence of prejudicial error, final, unless no inference can be drawn other than that the accused is innocent.” (P. 720.) We cannot say, as a matter of law, that there was no evidence to support the inference of asportation by the defendant in this ease. 1959In 1957, these concepts were reiterated in People v. Ames, 151 Cal.App.2d 714 [ 312 P.2d 1111 ] (hearing by the Supreme Court denied): “A conviction by the trial court is, in the absence of prejudicial error, final, unless no inference can be drawn other than that the accused is innocent.” (P. 720.) We cannot say, as a matter of law, that there was no evidence to support the inference of asportation by the defendant in this ease.	1	1959–1959
People v. Thomas green cal · 1951 2 sentences 1954That cannot be done, however, in the absence of prejudicial error. ( People v. Thomas, 37 Cal.2d 74 [ 230 P.2d 351 ]; People v. Odle, 37 Cal.2d 52 [ 230 P.2d 345 ].) Here there is none. 1954That cannot be done, however, in the absence of prejudicial error. ( People v. Thomas, 37 Cal.2d 74 [ 230 P.2d 351 ]; People v. Odle, 37 Cal.2d 52 [ 230 P.2d 345 ].) Here there is none.	1	1954–1954
People v. Odle green cal · 1951 2 sentences 1954That cannot be done, however, in the absence of prejudicial error. ( People v. Thomas, 37 Cal.2d 74 [ 230 P.2d 351 ]; People v. Odle, 37 Cal.2d 52 [ 230 P.2d 345 ].) Here there is none. 1954That cannot be done, however, in the absence of prejudicial error. ( People v. Thomas, 37 Cal.2d 74 [ 230 P.2d 351 ]; People v. Odle, 37 Cal.2d 52 [ 230 P.2d 345 ].) Here there is none.	1	1954–1954
Rungie v. Superior Court green calctapp · 1942 1 sentence 1946(Herbert’s Laurel-Ventura, Inc. v. Laurel Ventura Holding Corp., 58 Cal.App.2d 684, 690 [ 138 P.2d 43 ] ; Lorraine v. City of Los Angeles, 55 Cal.App.2d 27, 30 [ 130 P.2d 140 ].) Finally, it is contended that the court erred in excluding the testimony of Mrs. Reuss hy whom appellants sought to prove a telephonic conversation with the doctor, contradictory of the latter’s previous testimony that he had not had such a conversation.	1	1946–1946
Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd. v. Trans-Oceanic Co. neutral calctapp · 1921 2 sentences 1944(Yokohama Specie Bank Ltd. v. Trans-Oceanic Co., 54 Cal. App. 533 [ 202 P. 346 ].) The account of appellant was identified and his signatures on the supporting documents were admitted. 1944(Yokohama Specie Bank Ltd. v. Trans-Oceanic Co., 54 Cal. App. 533 [ 202 P. 346 ].) The account of appellant was identified and his signatures on the supporting documents were admitted.	1	1944–1944
People v. McFarlane green cal · 1903 1 sentence 1929A. 245, 71 Pac. 568 , 72 Pac. 48 ]; People v. Boren, 139 Cal. 210 [ 72 Pac. 899 ].) Notwithstanding the total absence of prejudicial error in the trial of this cause, we can reach no other conclusion upon this record than that the action of the jury was largely prompted by prejudice or passion.	1	1929–1929
People v. Boren green cal · 1903 2 sentences 1929A. 245, 71 Pac. 568 , 72 Pac. 48 ]; People v. Boren, 139 Cal. 210 [ 72 Pac. 899 ].) Notwithstanding the total absence of prejudicial error in the trial of this cause, we can reach no other conclusion upon this record than that the action of the jury was largely prompted by prejudice or passion. 1929A. 245, 71 Pac. 568 , 72 Pac. 48 ]; People v. Boren, 139 Cal. 210 [ 72 Pac. 899 ].) Notwithstanding the total absence of prejudicial error in the trial of this cause, we can reach no other conclusion upon this record than that the action of the jury was largely prompted by prejudice or passion.	1	1929–1929
People v. Costa green calctapp · 1914 2 sentences 1927And in People v. Costa, 24 Cal. App. 739 [ 142 Pac. 508 ], it was said that “Such fact, if true, standing alone in the absence of prejudicial error, would not justify a reversal of the case, but merely accentuates the effect of other errors disclosed by the record.” The error here complained of is said to 122 have been humiliating to defendant’s counsel and prejudicial to the defendant in the eyes of the jury. 1927And in People v. Costa, 24 Cal. App. 739 [ 142 Pac. 508 ], it was said that “Such fact, if true, standing alone in the absence of prejudicial error, would not justify a reversal of the case, but merely accentuates the effect of other errors disclosed by the record.” The error here complained of is said to 122 have been humiliating to defendant’s counsel and prejudicial to the defendant in the eyes of the jury.	1	1927–1927
Jordan v. Austin neutral ala · 1909 2 sentences 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by	1	1925–1925
Sandberg v. Chicago Railways Co. neutral illappct · 1915 1 sentence 1925Co., 191 Ill.	1	1925–1925
Sanger v. McDonald neutral ark · 1907 2 sentences 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by	1	1925–1925
Cavanagh v. Township of Riverside neutral mich · 1904 2 sentences 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by 1925Nevertheless, in itself and in the absence of prejudicial error “the record reveals evidence sufficiently substantial to support the verdict.” What the verdict would have been without the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff is, of course, impossible of infallible ascertainment, but in view of the fact that the decision by the jury, resting, as it did, primarily upon indifferent evidence, may have been and in all probability was largely influenced and possibly absolutely controlled by the innuendoes speaking to the wrongdoing of the defendant in concealing facts which should have been placed by	1	1925–1925

Where else courts name it

NE 237 (1965–2026) CA 18 (1925–2023) MI 11 (1975–2012) OK 6 (1918–2014) OH 6 (1995–2006) IL 4 (1908–1966) MN 3 (1959–2014) FL 2 (1962–2006) AR 2 (1989–2014) OR 2 (1975–2002) PA 2 (1966–1974) WA 2 (2019–2022)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check