refusal of a proper instruction in California

2024“A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 .) Although we view the evidence in a light most favorable to an appellant for this issue (Viner v. Sweet (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1225 ), “the refusal of a proper instruction is [reversible as a] prejudicial error only if ‘“it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict” [citations]’ [citation.]” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.A

2015“A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him which is supported by substantial evidence.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 .) “ ‘The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial error only if “ ‘it seems probable’ that the error ‘prejudicially affected the verdict.’ ” . . . “[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) an

2013Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 ; see Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1189, fn. 11 [“[i]t is not error . . . to refuse to give an instruction requested by a party when the legal point is covered adequately by the instructions that are given”].) “The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial only if ‘“it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’” ( Bell, supra, at p. 80 .) “We review the jury’s award under the substantial evidence standard and defer to the trial court’s denial of a new trial motion based on excessive damages because o

2008(Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1185, fn. 11 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 , 858 P.2d 598 ].) Moreover, the refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial error only if “ ‘it seems probable’ that the error ‘prejudicially affected the verdict.’ [Citations.]” (Soule, supra, at p. 580 .) “[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled. [Fn. omitted.]” (Id. at pp. 580-581.)

2014(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) “The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial error only if ‘ “it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instmctions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled. [Fn. omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Faigin v. Signature Group Hold

2014(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ].) “The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial error only if ‘ “it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instmctions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled. [Fn. omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Faigin v. Signature Group Hold

2014(Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 ]; Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 ].) A court may refuse a proposed instruction that is erroneous, misleading, or otherwise improper and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction in a civil case.

2014(Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 ]; Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 ].) A court may refuse a proposed instruction that is erroneous, misleading, or otherwise improper and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction in a civil case.

2014(Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 ]; Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 ].) A court may refuse a proposed instruction that is erroneous, misleading, or otherwise improper and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction in a civil case.

2014(Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 519, 526 [ 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 620 ]; Alcala v. Vazmar Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 747, 754 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 402 ].) A court may refuse a proposed instruction that is erroneous, misleading, or otherwise improper and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction in a civil case.

2015Under this theory, employers may be held "responsible where discriminatory or retaliatory actions by supervisory personnel bring about adverse employment actions through the instrumentality or conduit of other corporate actors who may be entirely innocent of discriminatory or retaliatory animus." (Reeves v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 95, 116 (Reeves).) "Of course, proof of discriminatory animus does not end the analysis of a discrimination claim.

2013Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 ; see Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1189, fn. 11 [“[i]t is not error . . . to refuse to give an instruction requested by a party when the legal point is covered adequately by the instructions that are given”].) “The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial only if ‘“it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’” ( Bell, supra, at p. 80 .) “We review the jury’s award under the substantial evidence standard and defer to the trial court’s denial of a new trial motion based on excessive damages because o

2013Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 ; see Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1189, fn. 11 [“[i]t is not error . . . to refuse to give an instruction requested by a party when the legal point is covered adequately by the instructions that are given”].) “The refusal of a proper instruction is prejudicial only if ‘“it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” [Citations.]’” ( Bell, supra, at p. 80 .) “We review the jury’s award under the substantial evidence standard and defer to the trial court’s denial of a new trial motion based on excessive damages because o

2008(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 ].) An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.

2008(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 ].) An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.

2008(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 ].) An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.

2008(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ]; Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 378 ].) An appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority.