commits error in California

2026(Jameson, at 7 p. 609.)” (Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 569 , 588; see also Waller v. TJD, Inc. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 830, 833 [“When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at trial”].) Under the doctrine of reversible error, even if a trial court errs in sustaining a demurrer to some (but not all) of a plaintiff’s causes of action, the error

2024(Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett- Packard Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 294 (Californians for Population Stabilization), disapproved on other grounds by Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163 ; Waller v. TJD, Inc. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 830, 833 [“When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at trial”].) Wentworth cannot pro

2024(Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett- Packard Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 294 (Californians for Population Stabilization), disapproved on other grounds by Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163 ; Waller v. TJD, Inc. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 830, 833 [“When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at trial”].) Wentworth cannot pro

2024(Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett- Packard Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 294 (Californians for Population Stabilization), disapproved on other grounds by Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163 ; Waller v. TJD, Inc. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 830, 833 [“When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at trial”].) Wentworth cannot pro

2014(See, e.g., Chun, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 1200-1201; People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 239 ["We conclude that the trial court's legal analysis here was erroneous.

2013(See, e.g., Chun, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 1200-1201; People v. Hendrix (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 216, 239 ["We conclude that the trial court's legal analysis here was erroneous.

1982(Cf. Norris v. Norris (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 726, 735 [ 123 P.2d 847 ].)” (In re Marriage of Holmgren (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 869, 873 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 440 ].) With her moving papers, wife filed an income and expense declaration showing no income except for the spousal and child support awarded under the terms of the interlocutory judgment.

1982(Cf. Norris v. Norris (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 726, 735 [ 123 P.2d 847 ].)” (In re Marriage of Holmgren (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 869, 873 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 440 ].) With her moving papers, wife filed an income and expense declaration showing no income except for the spousal and child support awarded under the terms of the interlocutory judgment.

1982(In re Marriage of Lopez (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93, 113 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 ].) However, “where the wife has inadequate funds to maintain the case in the trial court or take an appeal, the husband is able to pay a reasonable sum, and neither the initial proceeding nor the appeal are without substantial merit, the trial court commits error in denying any allowance for fees and costs.

1982(In re Marriage of Lopez (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 93, 113 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 58 ].) However, “where the wife has inadequate funds to maintain the case in the trial court or take an appeal, the husband is able to pay a reasonable sum, and neither the initial proceeding nor the appeal are without substantial merit, the trial court commits error in denying any allowance for fees and costs.

1953Since ultimate facts are required to be pleaded, it is only necessary in order to determine the sufficiency of a finding of fact to ascertain what statement of that fact is required in a pleading. (24 Cal.Jur., § 203, p. 968.) See, also, Nicolds v. Storch, 67 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 153 P.2d 561 ]; Hitchcock v. Lovelace, 47 Cal.App.2d 818, 830 [ 119 P.2d 151 ]; Pellegrino v. Los Angeles Tramit Lines, 79 Cal.App.2d 40, 42 [ 179 P.2d 39 ].

1953Since ultimate facts are required to be pleaded, it is only necessary in order to determine the sufficiency of a finding of fact to ascertain what statement of that fact is required in a pleading. (24 Cal.Jur., § 203, p. 968.) See, also, Nicolds v. Storch, 67 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 153 P.2d 561 ]; Hitchcock v. Lovelace, 47 Cal.App.2d 818, 830 [ 119 P.2d 151 ]; Pellegrino v. Los Angeles Tramit Lines, 79 Cal.App.2d 40, 42 [ 179 P.2d 39 ].

1953Since ultimate facts are required to be pleaded, it is only necessary in order to determine the sufficiency of a finding of fact to ascertain what statement of that fact is required in a pleading. (24 Cal.Jur., § 203, p. 968.) See, also, Nicolds v. Storch, 67 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 153 P.2d 561 ]; Hitchcock v. Lovelace, 47 Cal.App.2d 818, 830 [ 119 P.2d 151 ]; Pellegrino v. Los Angeles Tramit Lines, 79 Cal.App.2d 40, 42 [ 179 P.2d 39 ].

1953Since ultimate facts are required to be pleaded, it is only necessary in order to determine the sufficiency of a finding of fact to ascertain what statement of that fact is required in a pleading. (24 Cal.Jur., § 203, p. 968.) See, also, Nicolds v. Storch, 67 Cal.App.2d 8 [ 153 P.2d 561 ]; Hitchcock v. Lovelace, 47 Cal.App.2d 818, 830 [ 119 P.2d 151 ]; Pellegrino v. Los Angeles Tramit Lines, 79 Cal.App.2d 40, 42 [ 179 P.2d 39 ].

2026Rather, . . . ‘ “such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury. [Citations.] ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . .conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215 .) “Whether a trial court commits error by omitting an instruction on a lesser included offense depends not only on whether the evidence supports the possible comm

2025“Under California law, trial courts must instruct the jury on lesser included offenses of the charged crime if substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant committed the lesser included offense and not the greater offense.” (People v. Gonzalez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 186, 196 .) “Whether a trial court commits error by omitting an instruction on a lesser included offense depends not only on whether the evidence supports the possible commission of an alternative crime, but whether that alternative crime constitutes a ‘lesser included offense’ as we have defined it.” (Id. at p. 197.)

2026(Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 580 .) Instructional error is prejudicial in a civil case where it seems probable the error prejudicially affected the verdict.

2021The trial court may not force the litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party’s theory to the particular case.” (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 (Soule).) Thus, when a proposed instruction correctly states the law, and there is evidence to support it, a trial court commits error if it refuses to give it.

2019Moreover, Olson cannot show a more favorable outcome would have resulted had the judge who heard her original motion to strike also ruled on her motion to reconsider the same. ( California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 682 , 688, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 [" 'When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at tri

2019Moreover, Olson cannot show a more favorable outcome would have resulted had the judge who heard her original motion to strike also ruled on her motion to reconsider the same. ( California Housing Finance Agency v. Hanover/California Management & Accounting Center, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 682 , 688, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 92 [" 'When the trial court commits error in ruling on matters relating to pleadings, procedures, or other preliminary matters, reversal can generally be predicated thereon only if the appellant can show resulting prejudice, and the probability of a more favorable outcome, at tri

2015If the public entity satisfies the threshold burden of showing that the information was acquired in confidence, the statute requires the court next to weigh the interests and to sustain the privilege only if ‘ “there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice.” ’ [Citations.] A trial court commits error under this section if the court fails to make the 11 threshold determination or fails to engage in the process of balancing the interests.” (Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119,

2010(Marylander v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 1126 [“A trial court commits error under this section if the court fails to . . . engage in the process of balancing the interests”].) In each case, the trial court must consider a trust’s need for the unredacted CPR’s and weigh them against the awarding agency’s interests in maintaining confidentiality. * See footnote, ante, page 621.

2026Rather, . . . ‘ “such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury. [Citations.] ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . .conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215 .) “Whether a trial court commits error by omitting an instruction on a lesser included offense depends not only on whether the evidence supports the possible comm

2026(See Miranda, supra, 62 Cal.App.5th at p. 176 [holding that “battery is a lesser included offense of the crimes involving sexually touching an unconscious victim”]; Hernandez, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 1006 [determining that “battery is not a lesser included offense of rape of an unconscious person”].) 9 Miranda concluded: “[A] battery jury instruction should be given in a case where a defendant is charged with committing a sex act upon an unconscious victim when substantial evidence supports a finding that the defendant touched the victim in a way other than charged (e.g., in a different b

2026Rather, . . . ‘ “such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury. [Citations.] ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . .conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215 .) “Whether a trial court commits error by omitting an instruction on a lesser included offense depends not only on whether the evidence supports the possible comm

2026Rather, . . . ‘ “such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is ‘substantial enough to merit consideration’ by the jury. [Citations.] ‘Substantial evidence’ in this context is ‘ “evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . .conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ’ ” (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215 .) “Whether a trial court commits error by omitting an instruction on a lesser included offense depends not only on whether the evidence supports the possible comm

2025(People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 178 (Sivongxxay); accord, People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 941 .) To demonstrate prejudice under this standard, “a defendant must demonstrate that it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [the defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error.’” ( Sivongxxay, supra, at p. 178 , quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); accord, People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 840 .)7 Here, in addition to the prior prison term enhancements, the parties agreed to strike the firearm enhancements attached

2025(People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 178 (Sivongxxay); accord, People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 941 .) To demonstrate prejudice under this standard, “a defendant must demonstrate that it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [the defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error.’” ( Sivongxxay, supra, at p. 178 , quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); accord, People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 840 .)7 Here, in addition to the prior prison term enhancements, the parties agreed to strike the firearm enhancements attached

2025(People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 178 (Sivongxxay); accord, People v. Hendrix (2022) 13 Cal.5th 933, 941 .) To demonstrate prejudice under this standard, “a defendant must demonstrate that it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to [the defendant] would have been reached in the absence of the error.’” ( Sivongxxay, supra, at p. 178 , quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 (Watson); accord, People v. Valencia (2021) 11 Cal.5th 818, 840 .)7 Here, in addition to the prior prison term enhancements, the parties agreed to strike the firearm enhancements attached