California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Juarez v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.Rptr. 852, 31 Cal.3d 759, 647 P.2d 128 (Cal. 1982):
The latter two arguments are clearly without merit. Square Deal cites no authority requiring a party to request that the court enter judgment on a valid jury verdict in order for that party to have the benefit of the verdict. Although we have held that failure to object to a defective jury verdict before a jury is discharged prevents a party from relying on that defect to overturn the verdict (see Henrioulle v. Marin Ventures, Inc. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 512, 521-522, 143 Cal.Rptr. 247, 573 P.2d 465), there is no logical reason to require an objection to a court's failure to enter judgment on a valid verdict. The obvious purpose for requiring an objection to a defective verdict before a jury is discharged is to provide it an opportunity to cure the defect by further deliberation. ( 618.) No such rationale applies if the verdict is sound.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.