Supreme Court of California

Judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over defendant's claim that plaintiff's counsel committed misconduct in his closing argument as the alleged misconduct did not result in a miscarriage of justice where it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable verdict in the absence of the argument.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/29/2004
• Published 07/29/2004

Judges

• WERDEGAR, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
•  Horvitz & Levy, Peter Abrahams, Nina E. Scholtz, Encino;  Pollak, Vida & Fisher, Michael M. Pollak and Lawrence J. Sher, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant., Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Irving H. Greines, Feris M. Greenberger and Robert A. Olson, Los Angeles, for Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Fire Insurance Exchange as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Dunn Koes, Pamela E. Dunn and Daniel J. Koes, Pasadena, for State Farm General Insurance Company and United Services Automobile Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant., Law Offices of Ian Herzog, Evan D. Marshall, Ian Herzog and Amy Ardell, Santa Monica, for Plaintiffs and Respondents., Mannion & Lowe and E. Gerard Mannion, San Francisco, for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.,  Law Office of Amy Bach and Amy Bach, San Francisco, for United Policyholders as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.