11 California opinions name it 1 courts 1948–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Beltongreen2 sentences1979Plaintiff has the right to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case, and all of the issues presented, but where, as here, the court correctly instructs the jury on each issue covered by the tendered instruction, he cannot complain that it did not adopt his language (Harris v. Belton (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 595, 615 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 808 ]; Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d at p. 719). 1979Plaintiff has the right to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case, and all of the issues presented, but where, as here, the court correctly instructs the jury on each issue covered by the tendered instruction, he cannot complain that it did not adopt his language (Harris v. Belton (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 595, 615 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 808 ]; Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d at p. 719). | 1 | 1 |
Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304green1 sentence1979Plaintiff has the right to have the jury instructed upon his theory of the case, and all of the issues presented, but where, as here, the court correctly instructs the jury on each issue covered by the tendered instruction, he cannot complain that it did not adopt his language (Harris v. Belton (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 595, 615 [ 65 Cal.Rptr. 808 ]; Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of Machinists, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d at p. 719). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hendersongreen2 sentences1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , 1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , | 1 | 1 |
People v. Carrgreen2 sentences1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , 1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wolffgreen2 sentences1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , 1976The trial court's rejection of the tendered instruction was proper. ( People v. Carr (1972) 8 Cal.3d 287, 294-295 [ 104 Cal. Rptr. 705 , 502 P.2d 513 ].) The record is devoid of any evidence that any appellant suffered from undisputed mental illness or from incapacity to maturely and meaningfully reflect upon the gravity of contemplated acts. ( People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 821 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 271 , 394 P.2d 959 ].) No medical or other expert testimony was offered as to a mental disease or defect of any appellant ( People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal.2d 482, 488-489 [ 35 Cal. Rptr. 77 , | 1 | 1 |
Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp.green2 sentences1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th 1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th | 1 | 1 |
Johns v. Wardgreen2 sentences1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th 1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Keithleygreen2 sentences1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th 1968(See 2 Within, Cal. Procedure (1954) § 52-b, page 1780, and eases cited therein.)” (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal.App. 2d 780, 789 [ 339 P.2d 926 ].) "The more simply and plainly instructions can be framed and cover the issues, the better the jury will understand them. ...” (Estate of Keithley (1901) 134 Cal. 9, 13-14 [ 66 P. 5 ] ; and see Shinn, P.J. concurring in Werkman v. Howard Zink Corp. (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 418, 428-429 [ 218 P.2d 43 ].) The failure to make more specific reference to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, even if only to state that they were similar to th | 1 | 1 |
People v. McCaffreygreen2 sentences1956(People v. Meichtry, 37 Cal.2d 385, 390 [ 231 P.2d 847 ].) ” (People v. McCaffrey, 118 Cal.App.2d 611, 618 [ 258 P.2d 557 ].) The tendered instruction was erroneous in that it told the jury that the offense of assault with a deadly weapon necessarily includes “the crimes of assault and battery.” If the request had been confined to assault, with no reference to battery, a different question would arise. 1956(People v. Meichtry, 37 Cal.2d 385, 390 [ 231 P.2d 847 ].) ” (People v. McCaffrey, 118 Cal.App.2d 611, 618 [ 258 P.2d 557 ].) The tendered instruction was erroneous in that it told the jury that the offense of assault with a deadly weapon necessarily includes “the crimes of assault and battery.” If the request had been confined to assault, with no reference to battery, a different question would arise. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Meichtrygreen2 sentences1956(People v. Meichtry, 37 Cal.2d 385, 390 [ 231 P.2d 847 ].) ” (People v. McCaffrey, 118 Cal.App.2d 611, 618 [ 258 P.2d 557 ].) The tendered instruction was erroneous in that it told the jury that the offense of assault with a deadly weapon necessarily includes “the crimes of assault and battery.” If the request had been confined to assault, with no reference to battery, a different question would arise. 1956(People v. Meichtry, 37 Cal.2d 385, 390 [ 231 P.2d 847 ].) ” (People v. McCaffrey, 118 Cal.App.2d 611, 618 [ 258 P.2d 557 ].) The tendered instruction was erroneous in that it told the jury that the offense of assault with a deadly weapon necessarily includes “the crimes of assault and battery.” If the request had been confined to assault, with no reference to battery, a different question would arise. | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. United R.R. of S.F.green2 sentences1952As said in Stein v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 368, 373 [ 113 P. 663 ], “A juror would know that . . . without instruction and it would seem absurd to burden the record with a formal statement of a truth so self-evident.” Moreover, at least eight instructions were given on contributory negligence which, while not as specific or pointed as this tendered instruction, fairly instructed the jury on the subject and rendered it clearly repetitious. 1952As said in Stein v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 368, 373 [ 113 P. 663 ], “A juror would know that . . . without instruction and it would seem absurd to burden the record with a formal statement of a truth so self-evident.” Moreover, at least eight instructions were given on contributory negligence which, while not as specific or pointed as this tendered instruction, fairly instructed the jury on the subject and rendered it clearly repetitious. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jamestown Builders, Inc. v. General Star Indemnity Co.
green
1 sentence2023(Jamestown Builders, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 346 .) The insurer had not “decline[d] a tendered defense[, thereby rendering the insurer] . . . out of luck. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction
green
1 sentence2013Also, in order to resolve the underlying action, MT [Marian] agreed to assign certain claims and to an entry of judgment in the underlying action in the amount of $4,100,000.” The complaint further alleges “all insureds executed binding agreements on December 10, 2010.” “The admission of fact in a pleading is a ‘judicial admission.’ ” (Valerio v. Andrew Youngquist Construction (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1271 .) A judicial admission “is a waiver of proof of a fact by conceding its truth, and it has the effect of removing the matter from the issues.” (Ibid.) 10 We grant Marian’s joinder, and b | 1 | 2013–2013 |
CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co.
green
1 sentence1991(CNA Casualty of California v. Seaboard Surety Co., supra, 176 Cal.App.3d 598, 610 .) Western did not demonstrate at trial that it investigated before it decided to pay only half the fees and costs incurred in the Dypvik action. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Smith v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1975(Smith v. Lewis, supra, 13 Cal.3d 349 , 355 fn. 3, 360.) While approving those instructions, the high court upheld the trial court’s refusal of the lawyer’s tendered instruction that he was “ ‘not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well informed lawyers.’ ” (Smith v. Lewis, supra, 13 Cal.3d 349, 360 .) By approving the trial court’s action in instructing the juiy in a fashion which left to it the determination of whether the attorney’s conduct was under the facts negligent or not, our Supreme Court impliedly disapproved of Gambert’ 1975(Smith v. Lewis, supra, 13 Cal.3d 349 , 355 fn. 3, 360.) While approving those instructions, the high court upheld the trial court’s refusal of the lawyer’s tendered instruction that he was “ ‘not liable for being in error as to a question of law on which reasonable doubt may be entertained by well informed lawyers.’ ” (Smith v. Lewis, supra, 13 Cal.3d 349, 360 .) By approving the trial court’s action in instructing the juiy in a fashion which left to it the determination of whether the attorney’s conduct was under the facts negligent or not, our Supreme Court impliedly disapproved of Gambert’ | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co.
green
2 sentences1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. 1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Schwenger v. Gaither
green
2 sentences1952The court fully, and in terms favorable to the defendant, instructed the jury as to the plaintiff’s duty to look before and while crossing the pavement. ’ ’ In Schwenger v. Gaither, 87 Cal.App.2d 913 [ 198 P.2d 108 ], the court, citing the case of Cooper v. Smith, supra, stated (p. 914) : “The failure to give a tendered instruction on ‘to look is to see’ was not error.” *296 On the other hand, the questioned instruction, or one like it, has been given in several cases, and the courts have held that it was not error to give it. 1952The court fully, and in terms favorable to the defendant, instructed the jury as to the plaintiff’s duty to look before and while crossing the pavement. ’ ’ In Schwenger v. Gaither, 87 Cal.App.2d 913 [ 198 P.2d 108 ], the court, citing the case of Cooper v. Smith, supra, stated (p. 914) : “The failure to give a tendered instruction on ‘to look is to see’ was not error.” *296 On the other hand, the questioned instruction, or one like it, has been given in several cases, and the courts have held that it was not error to give it. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
LaBranch v. Scott
green
2 sentences1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. 1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Bosserman v. Olmstead
green
2 sentences1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. 1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Bischell v. State of California
green
2 sentences1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. 1952(See Bischell v. State of California, 68 Cal.App.2d 557 [ 157 P.2d 41 ]; Lasater v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 71 Cal.App.2d 217 [ 162 P.2d 486 ]; Bosserman v. Olmstead, 77 Cal.App.2d 236 [ 175 P.2d 49 ]; LaBranch v. Scott, 82 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 185 P.2d 823 ].) The jury, in the instant case, was not without a general guide on the subject matter of the proffered instruction. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Cooper v. Smith
green
2 sentences1948In Cooper v. Smith, 209 Cal. 562 [ 289 P. 614 ], the court said of a similar proposed instruction at page 566: *915 “The proposed instruction is a mere commonplace, within the knowledge of all the jurors, and is argumentative, rather than a statement of law. ’ ’ An instruction on mental suffering was properly-given. 1948In Cooper v. Smith, 209 Cal. 562 [ 289 P. 614 ], the court said of a similar proposed instruction at page 566: *915 “The proposed instruction is a mere commonplace, within the knowledge of all the jurors, and is argumentative, rather than a statement of law. ’ ’ An instruction on mental suffering was properly-given. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.