record specifies instruction (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

record specifies instruction in California

5 California opinions name it 1 courts 1933–2013 0 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
McFate v. Zuckermangreen
calctapp · 1933 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1935–1953
2 sentences

1935There is no ambiguity in the law on this subject, it being thoroughly settled that the court under such circumstances is not bound to give one. “ The rule is well established that the failure of a trial court to give an instruction may not be reviewed on appeal unless the record specifies the instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. ...” (McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal. App. 172 [ 19 Pac. (2d) 532 ].) Appellant claims further that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions numbered 1, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 24.

1935There is no ambiguity in the law on this subject, it being thoroughly settled that the court under such circumstances is not bound to give one. “ The rule is well established that the failure of a trial court to give an instruction may not be reviewed on appeal unless the record specifies the instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. ...” (McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal. App. 172 [ 19 Pac. (2d) 532 ].) Appellant claims further that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions numbered 1, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20 and 24.

12
Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Linesgreen
calctapp · 1953 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

11
Anderson v. Jonesgreen
calctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

11
Courtell v. McEachengreen
calctapp · 1956 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1962
2 sentences

1962(Courtell v. McEachen, 147 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [ 305 P.2d 115 ]; see also Podesta v. Deluchi, 98 Cal.App. 579 [ 277 P. 364 ].) We realize that we cannot review the failure of a trial court to give a certain instruction unless the record specifies such instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 820.) We further realize that the granting or refusing of a request such as that now made by plaintiff is discretionary with this court.

1962(Courtell v. McEachen, 147 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [ 305 P.2d 115 ]; see also Podesta v. Deluchi, 98 Cal.App. 579 [ 277 P. 364 ].) We realize that we cannot review the failure of a trial court to give a certain instruction unless the record specifies such instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 820.) We further realize that the granting or refusing of a request such as that now made by plaintiff is discretionary with this court.

11
Podesta v. Deluchigreen
calctapp · 1929 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1962–1962
2 sentences

1962(Courtell v. McEachen, 147 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [ 305 P.2d 115 ]; see also Podesta v. Deluchi, 98 Cal.App. 579 [ 277 P. 364 ].) We realize that we cannot review the failure of a trial court to give a certain instruction unless the record specifies such instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 820.) We further realize that the granting or refusing of a request such as that now made by plaintiff is discretionary with this court.

1962(Courtell v. McEachen, 147 Cal.App.2d 219, 221 [ 305 P.2d 115 ]; see also Podesta v. Deluchi, 98 Cal.App. 579 [ 277 P. 364 ].) We realize that we cannot review the failure of a trial court to give a certain instruction unless the record specifies such instruction and shows that it was requested and refused. (3 Cal.Jur.2d, p. 820.) We further realize that the granting or refusing of a request such as that now made by plaintiff is discretionary with this court.

11
Mills v. Los Angeles Junk Co.green
calctapp · 1935 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1953–1953
1 sentence

1953(McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal.App. 172, 179 [ 19 P.2d 532 ].) This rule has been applied in cases of failure to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Mills v. Los Angeles Junk Co., 3 Cal. App.2d 546, 548 [ 40 P.2d 285 ]; *699 Comstock v. Morse, 107 Cal.App. 71, 75 [ 290 P. 108 ]), and contributory negligence.

11
Comstock v. Morsegreen
calctapp · 1930 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1953–1953
2 sentences

1953(McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal.App. 172, 179 [ 19 P.2d 532 ].) This rule has been applied in cases of failure to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Mills v. Los Angeles Junk Co., 3 Cal. App.2d 546, 548 [ 40 P.2d 285 ]; *699 Comstock v. Morse, 107 Cal.App. 71, 75 [ 290 P. 108 ]), and contributory negligence.

1953(McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal.App. 172, 179 [ 19 P.2d 532 ].) This rule has been applied in cases of failure to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Mills v. Los Angeles Junk Co., 3 Cal. App.2d 546, 548 [ 40 P.2d 285 ]; *699 Comstock v. Morse, 107 Cal.App. 71, 75 [ 290 P. 108 ]), and contributory negligence.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Hyatt v. Sierra Boat Co. green
calctapp · 1978
2 sentences

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

12013–2013
White v. Inbound Aviation green
calctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

12013–2013
Metcalf v. County of San Joaquin green
cal · 2008
1 sentence

2013(Metcalf, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 1131 ; White, supra, 69 Cal.App.4th at p. 925 ; Hyatt, supra, 79 Cal.App.3d at p. 335 .) But they did not, and their failure to do so "means [they] may not argue on appeal the trial court should have instructed differently." (Metcalf, at p. 1131; see also Anderson v. Jones (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 284, 293 (Anderson) [plaintiff's failure to submit and request special instruction on standard of care "precludes him from raising the question on appeal"]; Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 685, 698 (Newman) ["the failure of a trial court to giv

12013–2013
Minehan v. Silveria neutral
calctapp · 1935
1 sentence

1953(McFate v. Zuckerman, 130 Cal.App. 172, 179 [ 19 P.2d 532 ].) This rule has been applied in cases of failure to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Mills v. Los Angeles Junk Co., 3 Cal. App.2d 546, 548 [ 40 P.2d 285 ]; *699 Comstock v. Morse, 107 Cal.App. 71, 75 [ 290 P. 108 ]), and contributory negligence.

11953–1953
Hand v. Scodeletti neutral
cal · 1900
2 sentences

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

11933–1933
In Re Estate of Higgins green
cal · 1909
2 sentences

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

11933–1933
Gilbert v. Peck green
cal · 1912
2 sentences

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

1933(Hand v. Scodoletti, 128 Cal. 674 [ 61 Pac. 373 ]; Estate of Higgins, 156 Cal. 257 [ 104 Pac. 6 ]; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54 [ 121 Pac. 315 , Ann.

11933–1933

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check