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.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2023 3 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 sentences2014(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 R2d 298] (Soule).) A refusal to instruct the jury is reversible error if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. 2014(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 882 R2d 298] (Soule).) A refusal to instruct the jury is reversible error if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hobbsgreen2 sentences1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). 1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). | 1 | 2 |
Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.red2 sentences1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai 1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crookergreen2 sentences1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai 1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chuckgreen2 sentences1986Nonetheless, although some older cases held that any consumption of alcoholic beverages by the jury is reversible error per se (see, e.g., People v. Lee Chuck (1889) 78 Cal. 317 , *1266 332 [ 20 P. 719 ]), the rule is now fairly well established that a verdict will not be set aside in the absence of some showing or some reasonable ground to suspect that the consumption of alcohol actually affected the jurors' capacity to competently perform their duties. 1986Nonetheless, although some older cases held that any consumption of alcoholic beverages by the jury is reversible error per se (see, e.g., People v. Lee Chuck (1889) 78 Cal. 317 , *1266 332 [ 20 P. 719 ]), the rule is now fairly well established that a verdict will not be set aside in the absence of some showing or some reasonable ground to suspect that the consumption of alcohol actually affected the jurors' capacity to competently perform their duties. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Learygreen2 sentences1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai 1986(See, e.g., Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 412 [ 185 Cal. Rptr. 654 , 650 P.2d 1171 ]; People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 356 [ 303 P.2d 753 ]; People v. Leary (1895) 105 Cal. 486, 493 [ 39 P. 24 ]; Annot. (1966) 7 A.L.R.3d 1040 , 1040-1044.) (12b) There is absolutely no evidence in this case that any of the jurors consumed alcohol at any time during the trial, let alone that any of the jurors became so intoxicated they were unable to competently perform their duties. [26] Defendant submits no affidavits — from jurors, trial counsel or court officials — to support his clai | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cooksgreen2 sentences1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). 1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Douglas v. Fidelity National Insurance
green
2 sentences2023Co. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 392, 408 .) “An appellant has the burden to provide a record sufficient to support its claim of error. [Citation.] Absent an indication in the record that an error occurred, we must presume that there was no error. [Citations.] An appellant arguing instructional error must ensure that the appellate record includes the instructions given and refused and the court’s rulings on proposed instructions. [Citations.] If the record does not show which party requested an erroneous instruction, the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and t 2021Co. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 392, 408 ; accord Soule, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 580 .) Based on the jury’s specific allocation of fault and its linear correlation with Morgan’s testimony regarding the timing and extent of his exposure to J-M Transite pipe, we would find no prejudice even if the trial court had erroneously refused J-MM’s special instruction. 13 C. | 3 | 2021–2023 |
People v. Gallinger
green
2 sentences1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). 1965(People v. Meyer, 73 Cal. 548 [ 15 P. 95 ] ; People v. Gallinger, 212 Cal.App.2d 851 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 472 ] ; People v. Hobbs, 37 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]. | 2 | 1965–1985 |
People v. Meyer
green
2 sentences1985In People v. Cooks (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 6, 12 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 819 ], the court said, “Disclosure of the prior to the jury is reversible error unless proof of the prior is made necessary by defendant’s refusal to admit it.” However, the cases cited in Cooks for this proposition stated no such rule; they either simply reversed without discussing prejudice (People v. Gallinger, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at p. 857 ) or found prejudice under the circumstances presented (People v. Meyer, supra, 73 Cal. at p. 550 ; People v. Hobbs (1940) 37 Cal.App.2d 8, 11-12 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]). 1965(People v. Meyer, 73 Cal. 548 [ 15 P. 95 ] ; People v. Gallinger, 212 Cal.App.2d 851 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 472 ] ; People v. Hobbs, 37 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 98 P.2d 775 ]. | 2 | 1965–1985 |
Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2023Co. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 392, 408 .) “An appellant has the burden to provide a record sufficient to support its claim of error. [Citation.] Absent an indication in the record that an error occurred, we must presume that there was no error. [Citations.] An appellant arguing instructional error must ensure that the appellate record includes the instructions given and refused and the court’s rulings on proposed instructions. [Citations.] If the record does not show which party requested an erroneous instruction, the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and t | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Chicago Title Insurance v. AMZ Insurance Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Services, Inc. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 401, 418 .) “A refusal to instruct the jury is reversible error if it is probable that the error prejudicially affected the verdict.” (Douglas, at p. 408.) 9 Schreiber erroneously maintains the standard of review is abuse of discretion, claiming Lee’s “argument is at its core an evidentiary dispute,” and Evidence Code “section 352 requires this Court to review the trial court’s decision only for abuse of discretion.” The court, however, admitted evidence of the settlement agreement, and that admission is not challenged on appeal. 21 Schreiber was deposed a | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.