In Neumann v. Bishop (1976) 59 Cal. App. 3d 451, trial counsel, in argument, engaged in what would have been misconduct, had proper objections been made. As a reviewing court, the Court of Appeal was hesitant to act in the absence of proper objections because some of the objectionable arguments could have been corrected with proper admonitions. ( Id. at p. 468, fn. 3.) Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal commented on counsel's argument finding that counsel had, among other things, engaged in ". . . the sophistry of linking his case to the judge." ( Id. at p. 488.) The court further commented, "No objection was made to this suggestion that according to the hard-working judges the jurors were merely there to fix the amount of money to be awarded to the plaintiff." (Ibid.) After quoting Sanguinetti the court stated, "We, therefore, conclude that it is improper and misconduct for counsel to argue that his case or some aspect thereof has judicial approval." ( Id. at p. 485.) Because the case was a clear liability case and the trial court had corrected the other errors by reducing the damages in lieu of new trial, the judgment was affirmed.