California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Jones v. Johnston Testers, Inc., 132 Cal.App.2d 162, 281 P.2d 602 (Cal. App. 1955):
Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal.App.2d 440, 443, 240 P.2d 993, 995. That is the situation here. See also Manney v. Housing Authority, 79 Cal.App.2d
Page 608
The witness had disclosed sufficient knowledge of the subject to entitle his opinion to go to the jury. The purpose of the [132 Cal.App.2d 171] question was apparent. It is evident from the question itself and from the previous testimony of the witness that his answer would have been favorable to plaintiffs. No offer of proof was necessary. Where a question to which an objection is sustained indicates that the answer to it will be favorable to the party seeking to introduce the testimony and the question is a material one, it is not necessary to make an offer of proof. Cripe v. Cripe, 170 Cal. 91, 94, 148 P. 520; Chambers v. Silver, 103 Cal.App.2d 633, 642, 230 P.2d 146.
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.