Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 California opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Soule v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2022(Haytasingh v. City of San Diego (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 429 , 467.) “A party is entitled to an instruction on each theory of the case that is supported by the pleadings and substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 684 (Bullock); see Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 (Soule) [“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. 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 | 5 | 7 |
Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.green2 sentences2022(Haytasingh v. City of San Diego (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 429 , 467.) “A party is entitled to an instruction on each theory of the case that is supported by the pleadings and substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction.” (Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 684 (Bullock); see Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 (Soule) [“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. 2022“A party is entitled to an instruction on each theory of the case that is supported by the pleadings and substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction.” (Bullock, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 684 .) The court was not presented with pleadings or evidence sufficient to warrant giving the challenged instruction. | 2 | 2 |
Faigin v. Signature Group Holdings, Inc.green2 sentences2014(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 | 1 | 2 |
Munoz v. City of Union Citygreen2 sentences2008(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ] (Soule)] Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1107-1108 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ].) A court may *685 refuse a proposed instruction that incorrectly states the law or is argumentative, misleading, or incomprehensible to the average juror, and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction. 2008(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ] (Soule)] Munoz v. City of Union City (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1107-1108 [ 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ].) A court may *685 refuse a proposed instruction that incorrectly states the law or is argumentative, misleading, or incomprehensible to the average juror, and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Orichian v. BMW of North America, LLC
green
2 sentences2025“A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on each viable legal theory supported by substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction.” (Orichian v. BMW of North America, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1322 , 25 1333.) “We independently review claims of instructional error viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant.” (Ibid.) 1. 2017Therefore, you cannot find Lorillard Tobacco Company liable merely based on a finding that Lorillard's product caused injury, or solely because Lorillard manufactures, advertises, or sells cigarettes." California law on the duty to instruct is clear: "A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on each viable legal theory supported by substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction. [Citation.]" ( *1194 Orichian v. BMW of North America, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1322 , 1333, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 .) "A court may refuse a proposed instruction that is erroneous, misleading, or | 4 | 2014–2025 |
Bell v. H.F. Cox, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Cox, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 62, 80 .) "The giving of an instruction argumentative in form is error [citations], although it is not always cause for reversal. [Citations.] An instruction that goes too elaborately into the particular facts relied on by one of the parties is an argumentative instruction. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.