Short answer. You do not have to keep repeating it. Rule 132, Section 37 provides that once it becomes reasonably apparent that further questions are of the same class as one already objected to, repeating the objection is unnecessary — recording a continuing objection to that class of questions is sufficient to preserve the point.
What the law says
When it becomes reasonably apparent in the course of the examination of a witness that the questions being propounded are of the same class as those to which objection has been made, whether such objection was sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection, it being sufficient for the adverse party to record his or her continuing objection to such class of questions.
Rule 132, Section 37 — When repetition of objection unnecessary. Read the full provision →
The practical problem the rule solves
Trials can involve extended lines of questioning built around a single improper theme — repeatedly probing an area already ruled off-limits, or continuing to phrase questions in a leading or argumentative way after the same defect has already been flagged. Requiring counsel to stand up and object anew to every single question in that pattern would slow proceedings, risk irritating the court and the jury where one sits, and create the false impression that only the objections actually voiced were preserved, while identical problems in unobjected questions slipped through unchallenged.
What has to happen before the shortcut applies
The rule does not excuse a party from objecting at all — it requires that objection has already been made to a question of a particular class, and that it has become reasonably apparent the questions that follow are of that same class, regardless of whether the earlier objection was sustained or overruled. Once those conditions are met, counsel is not required to interrupt the examination again for every repetition; instead, recording a continuing objection to that entire class of questions is enough to preserve the objection for the whole line, not just the single question first challenged.
Why counsel should still use this carefully
Relying on a continuing objection is convenient, but it works best where the pattern of improper questioning is genuinely uniform and easy for the record to identify later — an appellate court reviewing a continuing objection needs to be able to tell exactly which later questions the earlier objection was meant to cover. Where the questioning shifts even slightly in character, a fresh, specific objection is the safer course, since stretching a continuing objection to cover a materially different question risks the argument that the point was never actually preserved for that particular question at all.
Related provisions
- Rule 132, Section 37 — When repetition of objection unnecessary
- Rule 132, Section 36 — Objection
- Rule 132, Section 38 — Ruling