theory upon rule in California

1991Dist. v. Superior Court (1920) 182 Cal. 315, 333 [ 187 P. 1056 ] [judge had remote interest in subject matter]; T.P.B. v. Superior Court (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 881, 885-886 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 311 ].) The theory upon which the rule rests is not clearly stated in the decisions, and the proposition itself is not uniformly accepted in its broadest form by all of them. (2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, op. cit. supra, Courts, § 74, pp. 88-90.) For example, Giometti v. Etienne, supra, states, “this court has on several occasions pointed out that a judgment rendered by a disqualified judge is void.” ( 219 Cal. a

1991(Cadenasso v. Bank of Italy, supra, 214 Cal. 562, 569 .) *424 Witkin notes little is accomplished by calling the judgment of a disqualified judge “void”; the problem is one of jurisdiction.

1951(Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431 [ 67 P. 681 ].) ” 17 *483 Regardless of the theory upon which an exception is required, defendant’s conduct was the equivalent of an exception.

1951(Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431 [ 67 P. 681 ].) ” 17 *483 Regardless of the theory upon which an exception is required, defendant’s conduct was the equivalent of an exception.

1939Co., 107 Cal. 120 [ 40 P. 108 , 48 Am.St.Rep. 114 , 28 L.R.A. 596 ]; and it is quite apparent that the theory upon which the instruction is based finds support in the general language used in said opinion, as well as in the quotation therein from Shearman and Redfield on Negligence (sec. 87).

1939Co., 107 Cal. 120 [ 40 P. 108 , 48 Am.St.Rep. 114 , 28 L.R.A. 596 ]; and it is quite apparent that the theory upon which the instruction is based finds support in the general language used in said opinion, as well as in the quotation therein from Shearman and Redfield on Negligence (sec. 87).

1939However, assuming that the instruction in the form here presented and given deviated somewhat from the precise standard of conduct contended for by defendant, it cannot be said that the giving of this single instruction had the prejudicial effect claimed by defendant, for as said in the following cases, “in determining whether a jury has been properly instructed as to the law, the instructions taken as a whole must be considered; . . . and questionable instructions are not ground for reversal where the rights of appellant are clearly stated to the jury in other instructions ’ ’ (American Marin

1939However, assuming that the instruction in the form here presented and given deviated somewhat from the precise standard of conduct contended for by defendant, it cannot be said that the giving of this single instruction had the prejudicial effect claimed by defendant, for as said in the following cases, “in determining whether a jury has been properly instructed as to the law, the instructions taken as a whole must be considered; . . . and questionable instructions are not ground for reversal where the rights of appellant are clearly stated to the jury in other instructions ’ ’ (American Marin

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1929In other words, the court may correct a clerical error in order to make the record speak the truth and show what was in fact determined by the court (Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197, 202 ; Bemmerly v. Woodward, 124 Cal. 568 [ 57 Pac. 561 ]; Chicago Clock Co. v. Tobin, 123 Cal. 377 [ 55 Pac. 1007 ]; Fay v. Stubenrauch, 141 Cal. 573 [ 75 Pac. 174 ]; Erickson v. Stockton etc. R.

1923(People v. Elgar, 36 Cal. App. 114 [ 171 Pac. 697 ]; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165 [ 65 Pac. 323 ].) The theory upon which this instruction was denounced in those cases is stated therein as follows: “A verdict of guilty could have been rendered under such an instruction, although no two jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or at all, of the truth of the charge as to any one of these separate offenses.

1923(People v. Elgar, 36 Cal. App. 114 [ 171 Pac. 697 ]; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165 [ 65 Pac. 323 ].) The theory upon which this instruction was denounced in those cases is stated therein as follows: “A verdict of guilty could have been rendered under such an instruction, although no two jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or at all, of the truth of the charge as to any one of these separate offenses.

1923(People v. Elgar, 36 Cal. App. 114 [ 171 Pac. 697 ]; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165 [ 65 Pac. 323 ].) The theory upon which this instruction was denounced in those cases is stated therein as follows: “A verdict of guilty could have been rendered under such an instruction, although no two jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or at all, of the truth of the charge as to any one of these separate offenses.

1923(People v. Elgar, 36 Cal. App. 114 [ 171 Pac. 697 ]; People v. Williams, 133 Cal. 165 [ 65 Pac. 323 ].) The theory upon which this instruction was denounced in those cases is stated therein as follows: “A verdict of guilty could have been rendered under such an instruction, although no two jurors were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, or at all, of the truth of the charge as to any one of these separate offenses.

1908(Niles v. Edwards, 90 Cal. 10, 15 , [ 27 Pac. 159, 296 ]; Fromm v. Sierra Nevada S. M.

1908(Niles v. Edwards, 90 Cal. 10, 15 , [ 27 Pac. 159, 296 ]; Fromm v. Sierra Nevada S. M.

1903This precise question was decided by this court in People v. Taylor, 57 Cal. 620 .

1886(Hastings v. Cunningham, 35 Cal. 550 ; Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706 ; Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal. 582 ; Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 21 ; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal. 52 ; Carpentier v. Hart, 5 Cal. 406 ; Blachmore's Case, 4 Coke, 156.) The theory upon which this doctrine proceeded in the English courts was, that during the term the record was in the breast or knowledge of the judges, and not in the roll, and it was not until the term closed that the record was made up and completed, after which it could not be disturbed.

1886(Hastings v. Cunningham, 35 Cal. 550 ; Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706 ; Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal. 582 ; Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 21 ; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal. 52 ; Carpentier v. Hart, 5 Cal. 406 ; Blachmore's Case, 4 Coke, 156.) The theory upon which this doctrine proceeded in the English courts was, that during the term the record was in the breast or knowledge of the judges, and not in the roll, and it was not until the term closed that the record was made up and completed, after which it could not be disturbed.

1886(Hastings v. Cunningham, 35 Cal. 550 ; Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706 ; Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal. 582 ; Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 21 ; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal. 52 ; Carpentier v. Hart, 5 Cal. 406 ; Blachmore's Case, 4 Coke, 156.) The theory upon which this doctrine proceeded in the English courts was, that during the term the record was in the breast or knowledge of the judges, and not in the roll, and it was not until the term closed that the record was made up and completed, after which it could not be disturbed.

1886(Hastings v. Cunningham, 35 Cal. 550 ; Bell v. Thompson, 19 Cal. 706 ; Baldwin v. Kramer, 2 Cal. 582 ; Robb v. Robb, 6 Cal. 21 ; De Castro v. Richardson, 25 Cal. 52 ; Carpentier v. Hart, 5 Cal. 406 ; Blachmore's Case, 4 Coke, 156.) The theory upon which this doctrine proceeded in the English courts was, that during the term the record was in the breast or knowledge of the judges, and not in the roll, and it was not until the term closed that the record was made up and completed, after which it could not be disturbed.