In Sanguinetti v. Moore Dry Dock Co. (1951) 36 Cal. 2d 812, the Supreme Court held that it was misconduct for counsel to make a motion to increase the amount of damages requested, in the presence of the jury. The harm would occur when the jury later found out that motion had been granted. The court, quoting from two United State Supreme Court cases stated, '"It is obvious that under any system of jury trials the influence of the trial judge on the jury is necessarily and properly of great weight, and that his lightest word or intimation is received with deference, and may prove controlling."' ( Sanguinetti v. Moore Dry Dock Co., supra, 36 Cal. 2d at p. 819.) The Sanguinetti rule has been cited in fifteen cases since it was decided. It has not been the subject of a written opinion in more than 26 years.