burden of demonstrating error in California

2025Defendant also does not argue that admission of the video into evidence constituted a specific violation of Evidence Code section 352.2, or demonstrate the prejudicial effect of the admission of evidence, so any such argument is forfeited. ‘“[E]ach appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice.”’ (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 364 , citing People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 510, fn. 11 .) He has failed to cite any authority for the proposition that such evidence is irrelevant in a case where a hate-crime special circumstance is alleged.

2024“Joinder may be broadly permitted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5)), but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice (People v. Coley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 964 , 972 . . . ; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 , 106 . . . [‘Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice[]’][.])[ ]” (People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 510, fn. 11 .) Neither parent “spells out” how the other pare

2025Defendant also does not argue that admission of the video into evidence constituted a specific violation of Evidence Code section 352.2, or demonstrate the prejudicial effect of the admission of evidence, so any such argument is forfeited. ‘“[E]ach appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice.”’ (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 364 , citing People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 510, fn. 11 .) He has failed to cite any authority for the proposition that such evidence is irrelevant in a case where a hate-crime special circumstance is alleged.

2025If a party’s briefs do not provide legal argument and citation to authority on each point raised, ‘ “the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration. [Citations.]” ’ [Citation.] ‘Joinder may be broadly permitted [citation], but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice.’ ” (People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335 , 363– 364.) As V.A. makes no independent claims, does not demonstrate error or prejudice as to her, and provides no particularized argument in support of her ability to seek relief on the grounds raised by F.M., we need n

2026(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) The burden of demonstrating error falls on the appellant even when, as here, the standard of review is de novo.

2026(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 (Jameson).) The burden of demonstrating error falls on the appellant even when, as here, the standard of review is de novo.

2024“Joinder may be broadly permitted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5)), but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice (People v. Coley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 964 , 972 . . . ; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 , 106 . . . [‘Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice[]’][.])[ ]” (People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 510, fn. 11 .) Neither parent “spells out” how the other pare

2022DISCUSSION A. Father’s Appeal Father purports to join mother’s arguments “as they apply to [him].” “Joinder may be broadly permitted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5)), but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice (People v. Coley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 964 , 972 . . . ; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 , 106 . . . [‘Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice[]’][.])[ ]” (Peopl

2026(In re L.J. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 37 , 46 [“‘[t]he multiple victim exception, simply stated, permits one unstayed sentence per victim of all the violent crimes the defendant commits incidental to a single criminal intent’”].) We presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 ), and the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal (People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 378 ).

2025“On appeal, we presume that a judgment or order of the trial court is correct, ‘“[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.”’” (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 .) The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal.

2020(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent,” and an appellant, even one representing himself, bears the burden of demonstrating error.

2017This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.' " ( Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 , 564, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 .) The appellant has the burden of demonstrating error on the part of the trial court. ( People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644 , 666, 68 Cal.Rptr.3d 51 , 170 P.3d 623 .) " ' "[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented." ' " ( Foust v. San Jose Constructio

2020(City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Construction Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 217, 225 .) Substantial evidence in this context means such evidence as a reasonable fact trier might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; evidence which has ponderable legal significance, which is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value.

2015(See City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Construction Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 217, 225 , disapproved on another point in Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 14 .) Plaintiff did not carry this burden by demonstrating that a de novo determination should conclude the jury’s punitive damage award is not excessive.

2022(People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 ; People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 , 1139–1140.) “The trial court enjoys broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence and in assessing whether concerns of undue prejudice, confusion, or consumption of time substantially outweigh the probative value of particular evidence. [Citation.] ‘The exercise of discretion is not grounds for reversal unless “‘the court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’”’” (People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4t

2021(People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 666 ; People v. Anthony (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102 , 1139–1140.) “Because the court’s discretion to admit or exclude impeachment evidence ‘is as broad as necessary to deal with the great variety of factual situations in which the issue arises’ [citation], a reviewing court ordinarily will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion [citations]” (People v. Clark, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 932 ; accord, People v. Anderson (2018) 5 Cal.5th 372, 407 ; People v. Turner, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 408 ), unless “‘“‘the court exercised its discretion in a

2024“Joinder may be broadly permitted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5)), but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice (People v. Coley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 964 , 972 . . . ; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 , 106 . . . [‘Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice[]’][.])[ ]” (People v. Nero (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 504, 510, fn. 11 .) Neither parent “spells out” how the other pare

2022DISCUSSION A. Father’s Appeal Father purports to join mother’s arguments “as they apply to [him].” “Joinder may be broadly permitted (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5)), but each appellant has the burden of demonstrating error and prejudice (People v. Coley (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 964 , 972 . . . ; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68 , 106 . . . [‘Because of the need to consider the particulars of the given case, rather than the type of error, the appellant bears the duty of spelling out in his brief exactly how the error caused a miscarriage of justice[]’][.])[ ]” (Peopl

2017However, the Conroys bear the burden of describing the misrepresentation's substance, the person making the misrepresentation, and what they did in reliance on the misrepresentation. ( Daniels, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1166-1167, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 .) And they bear the burden of demonstrating error in the trial court's sustaining of the demurrer. ( Rakestraw, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 43-44, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 354 ; Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp . (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857 , 879, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 .) They have not met these burdens.

2017However, the Conroys bear the burden of describing the misrepresentation's substance, the person making the misrepresentation, and what they did in reliance on the misrepresentation. ( Daniels, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1166-1167, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 .) And they bear the burden of demonstrating error in the trial court's sustaining of the demurrer. ( Rakestraw, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at pp. 43-44, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 354 ; Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp . (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857 , 879, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 .) They have not met these burdens.

2024(Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 .) The burden of demonstrating error rests on the appellant.

2024“The burden of demonstrating error rests on the appellant. [Citation.]” (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 .) To meet this burden, the appellant must provide an adequate appellate record to assess error.

2020(Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476, 483 ; In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 .) The appellant has the burden of demonstrating error.

2015“A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citations.]” (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133 ; see generally Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2014) [¶] 8:15 et seq., p. 8-5 et seq.) “The burden of demonstrating error rests on the appellant. [Citation.]” (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 .) Even when our review is de novo, issues not raised in the appellant’s brief “are deemed waive

2015Even where the respondent fails to file a brief, the appellant "still has the burden of demonstrating error." (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 , 226- 227.) We will decide the appeal on the record and the opening brief and will reverse "only if prejudicial error is found." (Petrosyan v. Prince Corp. (2013) 223 Cal.App.4th 587, 593, fn. 2 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) 2 Seymour was his former girlfriend; after the relationship was over, Seymour posted false allegations about him on her blog; Seymour previously harassed others by posting false allegations aga

1973Although respondent has not filed a brief and we are under no duty to research the law (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 17(b)), appellant nevertheless has the burden of demonstrating error (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc., 269 Cal.App.2d 224, 226-227 [ 74 Cal.Rptr. 749 ]).

2026“On appeal, we review the matter independently, resolving in the plaintiff’s favor any doubts regarding the propriety of summary judgment.” (Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 415 .) “The trial court’s stated reasons for granting summary judgment are not binding on us because we review its ruling, not its rationale.” (Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 878 ; see Life v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 894, 899 .) Nevertheless, “we ‘must presume the judgment is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error.’ ” (Tubbs v. Berko

2025(Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 899 , 907; see Drouet v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 583, 589 .) “The trial court’s stated reasons for granting summary judgment are not binding on us because we review its ruling, not its rationale.” (Kids’ Universe v. In2Labs (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 870, 878 .) “Although we conduct a de novo review, we ‘must presume the judgment is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error.’” (Tubbs v. Berkowitz (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 548 , 554.) B.

2025(Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 372 ; Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125 .) In exercising our independent review, we apply the standards applicable to summary adjudication motions.

2024(Nealy v. City of Santa Monica (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 359, 372 ; 13 Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 118, 125 [even under de novo summary judgment review, our review is limited to issues adequately raised and supported in appellant’s brief].) In exercising our independent review, we apply the standards applicable to summary adjudication motions.