Sherman claim in California

2023As discussed above, when a victim contacts the police during a crime to seek help, the contact likely will result in the victim’s reporting the criminal conduct. ( McElroy, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at pp. 881-882.) Sherman’s brief argument based on sections 148.5 and 148.3 is also unpersuasive.

2022As discussed above, when a victim contacts the police during a crime to seek help, the contact likely will result in the victim’s reporting the criminal conduct. ( McElroy, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at pp. 881-882.) Sherman’s brief argument based on sections 148.5 and 148.3 is also unpersuasive.

2026(Sherman, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1160 .) The court reasoned that “ ‘the jury was out only 45 minutes’ ” and the nonproduced documents, if anything, helped the defendant because they largely related to different mechanisms of injury than the Sherman plaintiffs’ suffered.

2026(Ibid.) The plaintiffs asserted in their new trial motion that the “newly discovered evidence was requested in discovery, but [the defendant] had denied its existence” and “misled the jury into believing mishaps were infrequent.” (Ibid.) The Sherman defendant opposed the motion, explaining it withheld certain of the reports because it deemed them irrelevant, and others because they “were inadmissible for one reason or another.” (Sherman, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1159 .) The defendant also argued any “nonproduction was immaterial” because the plaintiffs introduced evidence of incidents beyon

2023He points out that the court made no findings on them in its statement of decision, despite his request.11 Our task would normally be to assess whether the court’s omission is harmless error, that is, whether Sherman has shown the “ ‘evidence is sufficient to sustain a finding in [his] favor . . . which would have the effect of countervailing or destroying other findings.’ ” (Thompson v. Asimos, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 983 .) 11 Sherman’s objection Nos. 25 through 33 to the court’s statement of decision addressed the court’s failure to make findings on his affirmative defenses of failure to

2020This is not a denial of medical care; it is part and parcel of Sherman’s claim of excessive force, which we discussed in part VII.B, ante. 27 2017) 854 F.3d 637, 647 , cert. den. sub nom.

2020Dale v. Rife (2017) ___ U.S. ___ [ 138 S. Ct. 364 ].) 1.

1971In a recent federal case involving omission from jury panels of persons below age 25 and over age 70, it was observed; “We regard it as highly speculative whether the decisional outlook of such excluded persons would be different than that of persons a mere few years older, or a few years younger. - The mere fact that there might be fewer young persons on the jury, and fewer of the oldest, than the exact proportion of such persons existing in the community does not of itself make a jury nonrepresentative.” (King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123, at p. 124 ; cf. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 [ 7 L

1971In a recent federal case involving omission from jury panels of persons below age 25 and over age 70, it was observed; “We regard it as highly speculative whether the decisional outlook of such excluded persons would be different than that of persons a mere few years older, or a few years younger. - The mere fact that there might be fewer young persons on the jury, and fewer of the oldest, than the exact proportion of such persons existing in the community does not of itself make a jury nonrepresentative.” (King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123, at p. 124 ; cf. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 [ 7 L

1971In a recent federal case involving omission from jury panels of persons below age 25 and over age 70, it was observed; “We regard it as highly speculative whether the decisional outlook of such excluded persons would be different than that of persons a mere few years older, or a few years younger. - The mere fact that there might be fewer young persons on the jury, and fewer of the oldest, than the exact proportion of such persons existing in the community does not of itself make a jury nonrepresentative.” (King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123, at p. 124 ; cf. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 [ 7 L