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.
9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1929–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Traxler v. Varadygreen2 sentences2019"The negligence per se doctrine is codified in Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), under which negligence is presumed if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, 2019"The negligence per se doctrine is codified in Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), under which negligence is presumed if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, | 2 | 3 |
People v. Greenbergergreen2 sentences2015(People v Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 865 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "marginal" and "slim"]; Greenberger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 352 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "not significant to [defendant]'s defense"].) The trial court's erroneous attempt to sanitize the 1997 murder to protect Solis prejudiced Abad under either Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (different result must have been "reasonably probable" in the absence of the error). 2015(People v Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 865 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "marginal" and "slim"]; Greenberger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 352 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "not significant to [defendant]'s defense"].) The trial court's erroneous attempt to sanitize the 1997 murder to protect Solis prejudiced Abad under either Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (different result must have been "reasonably probable" in the absence of the error). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Watsongreen1 sentence2015(People v Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 865 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "marginal" and "slim"]; Greenberger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 352 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "not significant to [defendant]'s defense"].) The trial court's erroneous attempt to sanitize the 1997 murder to protect Solis prejudiced Abad under either Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (different result must have been "reasonably probable" in the absence of the error). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Arisgreen2 sentences2011(Id. at p. 1183.) The trial court excluded the defense expert’s opinion that she was a battered woman, as well as evidence “ ‘explaining how the psychological impact of being a battered woman affected her perception of danger at the time she shot her husband.’ ” (Id. at p. 1193.) Dr. Walker, the foremost authority on battered woman syndrome (BWS), was only permitted to testify in general about the definition of BWS, its symptoms, and the behaviors associated with it. 15 (215 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1194-1195.) She was not permitted to relate BWS to the defendant or to self-defense, apparently on the 2011(Aris, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1185 .) The appellate court reasoned that Dr. Walker’s opinion—that as a battered woman, the defendant reasonably perceived herself to be in danger—“slightly reframed [was] highly relevant to the first element of self-defense—defendant’s actual, subjective perception that she was in danger and that she had to kill her husband to avoid that danger. | 1 | 1 |
San Joaquin Light & Power Co. v. Barlowgreen2 sentences1929He may not only submit to the ruling of the court without future offer of evidence upon the excluded defense, but it is his duty to accept such ruling.” (Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431, 433 [ 67 Pac. 681, 682 ], See, also, San Joaquin Light & Power Co. v. Barlow, 43 Cal. App. 241, 243 [ 184 Pac. 899 ].) It remains to determine whether the plaintiffs have been “deprived of any substantial right” by the ruling of the court. 1929He may not only submit to the ruling of the court without future offer of evidence upon the excluded defense, but it is his duty to accept such ruling.” (Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431, 433 [ 67 Pac. 681, 682 ], See, also, San Joaquin Light & Power Co. v. Barlow, 43 Cal. App. 241, 243 [ 184 Pac. 899 ].) It remains to determine whether the plaintiffs have been “deprived of any substantial right” by the ruling of the court. | 1 | 1 |
Pastene v. Pardinigreen2 sentences1929He may not only submit to the ruling of the court without future offer of evidence upon the excluded defense, but it is his duty to accept such ruling.” (Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431, 433 [ 67 Pac. 681, 682 ], See, also, San Joaquin Light & Power Co. v. Barlow, 43 Cal. App. 241, 243 [ 184 Pac. 899 ].) It remains to determine whether the plaintiffs have been “deprived of any substantial right” by the ruling of the court. 1929He may not only submit to the ruling of the court without future offer of evidence upon the excluded defense, but it is his duty to accept such ruling.” (Pastene v. Pardini, 135 Cal. 431, 433 [ 67 Pac. 681, 682 ], See, also, San Joaquin Light & Power Co. v. Barlow, 43 Cal. App. 241, 243 [ 184 Pac. 899 ].) It remains to determine whether the plaintiffs have been “deprived of any substantial right” by the ruling of the court. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025(Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1373 .) “In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the excluded instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because ‘we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.’” (Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp., supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 596 , quoting Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 .) 3. 2019A judgment in favor of respondents was entered on November 28, 2016. *596 II DISCUSSION "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, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ( Soule ).) An erroneous refusal to instruct the jury is reversible if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. ( Id. at p. 580, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) We independently review contentions that the court erred in in | 4 | 2019–2025 |
Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019(Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, 82 .) In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the excluded instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because “we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.” (Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 .) Appellants contend they were entitled to a negligence per se instruction with r 2019A judgment in favor of respondents was entered on November 28, 2016. *596 II DISCUSSION "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, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ( Soule ).) An erroneous refusal to instruct the jury is reversible if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. ( Id. at p. 580, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) We independently review contentions that the court erred in in | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Alcala v. Vazmar Corp.
green
2 sentences2019"The negligence per se doctrine is codified in Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), under which negligence is presumed if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, 2019"The negligence per se doctrine is codified in Evidence Code section 669, subdivision (a), under which negligence is presumed if the plaintiff establishes four elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property; (3) the death or injury resulted from an occurrence the nature of which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Mansur v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2025(Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1373 .) “In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the excluded instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because ‘we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.’” (Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp., supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 596 , quoting Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 .) 3. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp.
green
1 sentence2025(Mansur v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1373 .) “In doing so, and in evaluating any prejudicial impact of the excluded instruction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the losing party because ‘we must assume the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the proposed instruction was predicated and might have rendered a verdict in favor of the losing party had a proper instruction been given.’” (Taulbee v. EJ Distribution Corp., supra, 35 Cal.App.5th at p. 596 , quoting Bourgi v. West Covina Motors, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1649, 1664 .) 3. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Legendary Investors Group No. 1, LLC v. Niemann
green
1 sentence2020Even as to claims that might otherwise be barred, “ ‘parties may by agreement limit the legal effect of a dismissal with prejudice so that it would not constitute a retraxit and affect their rights in a later pending action.’ ” (Legendary Investors Group No. 1, LLC v. Niemann (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1411 .) Where a settlement agreement expressly excludes certain claims, the resulting dismissal does not preclude further litigation on the excluded claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2019A judgment in favor of respondents was entered on November 28, 2016. *596 II DISCUSSION "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, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ( Soule ).) An erroneous refusal to instruct the jury is reversible if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. ( Id. at p. 580, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) We independently review contentions that the court erred in in 2019A judgment in favor of respondents was entered on November 28, 2016. *596 II DISCUSSION "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, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 ( Soule ).) An erroneous refusal to instruct the jury is reversible if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. ( Id. at p. 580, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 P.2d 298 .) We independently review contentions that the court erred in in | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2015(People v Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 865 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "marginal" and "slim"]; Greenberger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 352 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "not significant to [defendant]'s defense"].) The trial court's erroneous attempt to sanitize the 1997 murder to protect Solis prejudiced Abad under either Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (different result must have been "reasonably probable" in the absence of the error). 2015(People v Homick, supra, 55 Cal.4th at pp. 865 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "marginal" and "slim"]; Greenberger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 352 [characterizing the probative value of the excluded evidence as "not significant to [defendant]'s defense"].) The trial court's erroneous attempt to sanitize the 1997 murder to protect Solis prejudiced Abad under either Chapman, supra, 386 U.S. 18 or People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (different result must have been "reasonably probable" in the absence of the error). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Thornton
green
1 sentence2014(People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 443 .) Rather, the court excluded defense evidence on the ultimate issue in contention. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.
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.