After the trial court refused a jury instruction embodying his view of the law to be applied, counsel objected, then asked the judge to consider it a "continuing" objection so he wouldn't have to keep repeating it. The judge agreed. But the Supreme Court found the objection unclear: Which of the two legal issues in the instruction was it about? Or was it both? Counsel did not object about the issues when his opponent mentioned them in closing argument, and did not move for a curative instruction or a mistrial to counter the opponent's improper references to them. Williams v. Swenson, 4/5/18.