People v. Flood
Citations
- 102 Cal. 330
- 36 P. 663
- 1894 Cal. LEXIS 645
Syllabus
<p>Appeal—Review op New-trial Order—Opinion op Judge—Instruction—Insufficiency of Evidence. —Where a motion for a new trial is made upon several grounds, and the order is general in its terms, and does not specify or limit the grounds upon which it was made, the appellate court, in reviewing the order, will not be limited by an opinion of the judge, though made a part of the bill of exceptions, in which he holds that he committed an error in giving a certain instruction to the jury; and if one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial is that it was contrary to evidence, the order granting the motion will not be reversed, unless it appears that the discretion of the court to grant a new trial for insuEciency of the evidence has been abused.</p>
Judges: Harrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- People v. MegladderyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1940-09-30· cited 95×
- People v. MontgomeryCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1976-09-08· cited 32×
- Koyer v. McComberCalifornia Supreme Court· 1938-09-26· cited 31×
- People v. RoubusCalifornia Supreme Court· 1966-09-15· cited 21×
- People v. MattmuellerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1938-03-19· cited 10×
- People v. RayCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1928-05-16· cited 7×
- Warner v. F. Thomas Parisian Dyeing & Cleaning WorksCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-06-19· cited 1×
- Boca & Loyalton Railroad v. Sierra Valleys RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1905-12-29
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.