Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 159 Cal. App. 4th 655 - 2008

—appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority

"We review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict under the law stated in the instructions given, rather than under some other law on which the jury was not instructed

When the contention on appeal is that the trial court failed to give a requested jury instruction, we review the record in the light most favorable to the party proposing the instruction to determine whether there was substantial evidence warranting the instruction

To make this determination, courts consider three factors:(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct;(2) the amount of compensatory damages awarded; and (3) the defendant's financial condition or wealth

—given and refused and the court's rulings on proposed instructions.[Citations.] If the record does not show which party requested an erroneous instruction, the reviewing court must presume that the appellant requested the instruction and therefore cannot complain of error.... `[I] t is incumbent upon... appellant... to make certain that the trial court has ruled [on a requested …

Furthermore, Kaiser Gypsum had an adequate remedy to challenge the amount of the punitive damages award by way of post-trial motion and an appeal, which it pursued

"A court may refuse a proposed instruction that incorrectly states the law or is argumentative, misleading, or incomprehensible to the average juror, and ordinarily has no duty to modify a proposed instruction.[Citations.] A court may refuse a proposed instruction if other instructions given adequately cover the legal point.[Citation

—to any party are to relieve the trial court and the parties of the unnecessary burden of relitigating issues that have been decided, and to respect and preserve the results of a trial on issues as to which the appellant has not shown error.[Citations.] Whether an issue can be tried separately without prejudice to any party depends on the particular circumstances of each case …

"A party is entitled upon request to correct, nonargumentative instructions on every theory of the case advanced by him or her which is supported by substantial evidence