5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kenworthy v. State of Californiagreen1 sentence2021(Ibid.; see Garden Grove School District v. Hendler (1965) 63 Cal.2d 141, 143 [prejudicial misconduct where plaintiff’s attorney resorted to insulting and derogatory characterizations of defendants, and impugned the motives and purpose of defendants]; Simmons, supra, at pp. 351-357 [counsel accused defendant of cheating, stealing, and perjury]; Kenworthy v. State of California (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 397-399 [misconduct “was a deliberate attempt to administer poison, no single dose of which was lethal but with an accumulative effect inevitable and realized”].) “The question is not whether t | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.green1 sentence2021(Ibid.; see Garden Grove School District v. Hendler (1965) 63 Cal.2d 141, 143 [prejudicial misconduct where plaintiff’s attorney resorted to insulting and derogatory characterizations of defendants, and impugned the motives and purpose of defendants]; Simmons, supra, at pp. 351-357 [counsel accused defendant of cheating, stealing, and perjury]; Kenworthy v. State of California (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 397-399 [misconduct “was a deliberate attempt to administer poison, no single dose of which was lethal but with an accumulative effect inevitable and realized”].) “The question is not whether t | 1 | 1 |
Garden Grove School District v. Hendlergreen1 sentence2021(Ibid.; see Garden Grove School District v. Hendler (1965) 63 Cal.2d 141, 143 [prejudicial misconduct where plaintiff’s attorney resorted to insulting and derogatory characterizations of defendants, and impugned the motives and purpose of defendants]; Simmons, supra, at pp. 351-357 [counsel accused defendant of cheating, stealing, and perjury]; Kenworthy v. State of California (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 378, 397-399 [misconduct “was a deliberate attempt to administer poison, no single dose of which was lethal but with an accumulative effect inevitable and realized”].) “The question is not whether t | 1 | 1 |
Pope v. Babickgreen1 sentence2015Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the jury would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error.” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249 (Pope); Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 .) To determine whether Sprint was prejudiced, we “must determine whether it is reasonably probable [Sprint] would have achieved a more favorable result in the absence of” any attorney misconduct. | 1 | 1 |
Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresnogreen1 sentence2013Appellants allege: "The trial court's refusal . . . constitutes an irregularity and error in the proceedings" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivision 1.2 "We will not disturb the trial court's determination of a motion for a new trial unless the court has abused its discretion. [Citation.] When the court has denied a motion for a new trial, however, we must determine whether the court abused its discretion by examining the entire record and making an independent assessment of whether there were grounds for granting the motion. [Citation.]" (ABF Capital Corp. v. B | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Los Angeles v. Decker
green
2 sentences2021(Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860, 872 .) Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the jury would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error. 2021(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 800 .) As to this issue, we make “an independent determination as to whether the error was prejudicial.” (Decker, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 872 .) Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the trier of fact would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Cassim v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence2021(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 800 .) As to this issue, we make “an independent determination as to whether the error was prejudicial.” (Decker, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 872 .) Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the trier of fact would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rayii v. Gatica CA2/3
green
2 sentences2015Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the jury would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error.” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249 (Pope); Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 .) To determine whether Sprint was prejudiced, we “must determine whether it is reasonably probable [Sprint] would have achieved a more favorable result in the absence of” any attorney misconduct. 2015Prejudice exists if it is reasonably probable that the jury would have arrived at a verdict more favorable to the moving party in the absence of the irregularity or error.” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249 (Pope); Rayii, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1411 .) To determine whether Sprint was prejudiced, we “must determine whether it is reasonably probable [Sprint] would have achieved a more favorable result in the absence of” any attorney misconduct. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass
green
1 sentence2013Appellants allege: "The trial court's refusal . . . constitutes an irregularity and error in the proceedings" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 657, subdivision 1.2 "We will not disturb the trial court's determination of a motion for a new trial unless the court has abused its discretion. [Citation.] When the court has denied a motion for a new trial, however, we must determine whether the court abused its discretion by examining the entire record and making an independent assessment of whether there were grounds for granting the motion. [Citation.]" (ABF Capital Corp. v. B | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Williamson v. Joyce
green
1 sentence1905As said by this court in the Estate of Tibbetts, 137 Cal. 128 , [ 69 Pac. 980 ]: “Where, however, there is really no substantial evidence to support a verdict, or the jury were evidently actuated by motives which they had no right to consider,—as is so frequently the case in contests of wills,— there this court will hold that, as a matter of law, the verdict is unwarranted, even though there be some slight pretense of evidence to support it. ’ ’ It may be conceded that in withdrawing the case from the jury the court practically granted a nonsuit, as claimed by the contestants, and that the cou | 1 | 1905–1905 |
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.