implied findings and presumes the trial doctrine in California

2025Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 996 ; see also In re Marriage of McHugh (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1248 [“ ‘when parties waive a statement of decision expressly or by not requesting one in a timely manner, appellate courts reviewing the appealed judgment must presume the trial court made all factual findings necessary to support the judgment for which there is substantial evidence.’ [Citations

2023Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.] This doctrine “is a natural and logical corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error.” ’ ” (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 996 ; see Prob.

2023Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]’” (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 237 .) Based upon the above, we review for substantial evidence and apply the doctrine of implied findings if substantial evidence supports an implied finding.

2023Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Carbajal v. CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 237 .) Based on the particular circumstances here, we conclude the doctrine is immaterial for our review because the appellate record adequately shows what the judge found.

2021Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence.” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 970 .) At the same time, “[i]nterpreting a written document to determine whether it is an enforceable arbitration agreement is a question of law subject to de novo review when the parties do not offer conflicting extrinsic evidence regarding the document’s meaning.” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 60 .) Similarly, if the

2021Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence.” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 970 .) At the same time, “[i]nterpreting a written document to determine whether it is an enforceable arbitration agreement is a question of law subject to de novo review when the parties do not offer conflicting extrinsic evidence regarding the document’s meaning.” (Avery v. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 50, 60 .) Similarly, if the

2021(Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 953 ; see Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696, 707 .) Here, although the parties do not agree on the date respondent accepted Altamed’s offer letter, that date is relevant only in relation to her signature on the arbitration agreement.

2021(Brown v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 938, 953 ; see Molecular Analytical Systems v. Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 696, 707 .) Here, although the parties do not agree on the date respondent accepted Altamed’s offer letter, that date is relevant only in relation to her signature on the arbitration agreement.

2015Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. ( Agri-Systems, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th 1128 at p. 1135 .) This doctrine “is a natural and logical corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error.” (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42

2015Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. ( Agri-Systems, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th 1128 at p. 1135 .) This doctrine “is a natural and logical corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error.” (Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42

2023(Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 .) When a contract is ambiguous and its interpretation requires assessing the credibility of properly admitted but 6 conflicting extrinsic evidence, however, interpreting the contract is a question of fact.

2021Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence.” (Acquire II, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 970 .) “The question then becomes whether substantial evidence supports the implied factual findings.” (Fladeboe, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 48 .) The doctrine of implied findings thus “requires us to infer the trial court impliedly made every factual finding necessary” (Fladeboe, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 48 ) to conclude that Han and the defendant entities were alter egos of Top86, incl

2019(Ferguson v. Yaspan (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 676, 682 .) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the judgment, do not reweigh the evidence, and are bound by the fact finder’s credibility determinations.

2016Second, the appellate court applies the doctrine of implied findings and presumes the trial court made all necessary findings supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (Acquire II, Ltd. v. Colton Real Estate Group (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 959, 970 .) The Trust cites DRG/Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Chopstix Dim Sum Cafe & Takeout III, Ltd. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 54 .