Durst v. California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting claim that defendant’s objection to language in jury instruction was not sufficiently specific where defendant’s precharge arguments meant “court knew the exact language defendant wanted and rejected it”
• rejecting claim that defendant’s objection to language in jury instruction was not sufficiently specific where defendant’s pre-charge arguments meant “court knew the exact language defendant wanted and rejected it”
• “Knowledge ... is determined by a subjective standard rather than the objective standard of negligence law (a reasonable person would have known, therefore, defendant should have known).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).