includes instruction in California

2026Because Veals has failed to provide a reporter’s transcript, or the equivalent, of the June 17, 2025 proceedings, we are unable to evaluate his claims of error and we therefore affirm “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as

2025We refer to the companies as “entity defendants.” 2 PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE REVIEW “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court

2026Because Veals has failed to provide a reporter’s transcript, or the equivalent, of the June 17, 2025 proceedings, we are unable to evaluate his claims of error and we therefore affirm “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as

2025We refer to the companies as “entity defendants.” 2 PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE REVIEW “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court

2026Because Veals has failed to provide a reporter’s transcript, or the equivalent, of the June 17, 2025 proceedings, we are unable to evaluate his claims of error and we therefore affirm “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as

2025We refer to the companies as “entity defendants.” 2 PRINCIPLES OF APPELLATE REVIEW “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that the judgment or order challenged on appeal is presumed to be correct, and it is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.” (Argueta v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 822 , 833, citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) “ ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support [the judgment] on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (Denham v. Superior Court

2026(See Cal. 11 Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).3) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided . . . it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 , citing Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147 , 153–154.) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain, at p. 992, citing Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386; National Secretarial

2026(See Cal. 11 Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).3) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided . . . it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 , citing Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147 , 153–154.) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain, at p. 992, citing Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386; National Secretarial

2026“The normal rules of appellate review apply to an order granting or denying attorney fees . . . .” (Apex, LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017 .) “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed judgment or order is presumed to be correct. [Citation.] ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ [Citations.] This includes the presumption ‘that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact.’ ” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appea

2026(See Cal. 11 Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).3) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided . . . it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 , citing Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147 , 153–154.) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain, at p. 992, citing Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386; National Secretarial

2026(See Cal. 11 Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).3) “Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided . . . it is presumed that the unreported trial testimony would demonstrate the absence of error.” (Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 , citing Ehrler v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147 , 153–154.) “The effect of this rule is that an appellant who attacks a judgment but supplies no reporter’s transcript will be precluded from raising an argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Estate of Fain, at p. 992, citing Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386; National Secretarial

2026“The normal rules of appellate review apply to an order granting or denying attorney fees . . . .” (Apex, LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017 .) “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed judgment or order is presumed to be correct. [Citation.] ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ [Citations.] This includes the presumption ‘that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact.’ ” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appea

2026“The normal rules of appellate review apply to an order granting or denying attorney fees . . . .” (Apex, LLC v. Korusfood.com (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1017 .) “The most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed judgment or order is presumed to be correct. [Citation.] ‘All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’ [Citations.] This includes the presumption ‘that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact.’ ” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appea

2025(Vang, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 91 [the term “actual killer” in § 189, subd. (e)(1) “means the person (or persons) who personally killed the victim”].) Moreover, it is unnecessary to address if defendant qualified for the categories in section 189, subdivision (e) permitting liability for a murder “in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of [an enumerated felony]” because no instructions on felony murder or aiding and abetting were given to the jury and defendant was not charged with an enumerated felony. (§ 189, subd. (a), (e).) This includes analysis of whether defendant was a major

2025(Vang, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 91 [the term “actual killer” in § 189, subd. (e)(1) “means the person (or persons) who personally killed the victim”].) Moreover, it is unnecessary to address if defendant qualified for the categories in section 189, subdivision (e) permitting liability for a murder “in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of [an enumerated felony]” because no instructions on felony murder or aiding and abetting were given to the jury and defendant was not charged with an enumerated felony. (§ 189, subd. (a), (e).) This includes analysis of whether defendant was a major

2023(Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (9th Cir. 1986) 789 F.2d 705 , 708-709.) The trustee in the bankruptcy, who is the representative of the bankrupt estate, automatically succeeds to all causes of action held by the debtor at the 9 time the bankruptcy petition was filed.

2022This includes the principle, directly responsive to the jury’s question, that it is not enough that Gilbert’s own emotions were aroused to the point that he acted out of passion, since he “is not allowed to set up his own standard of conduct.” Rather, the jury’s job is to decide “whether a 13 person of average disposition, in the same situation and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from passion rather than judgment.” This portion of its instructions is entirely consistent with the “venerable understanding” that “[p]rovocation is adequate only when it would render an ordinary person of

2022(PANNA, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at pp. 249-250.) This includes an analysis of each rodenticide’s prevalence, toxicity, effect on non-target wildlife, and the effect of its interaction with other rodenticides (like brodifacoum) on non-target wildlife.

2021(People v. Sedeno (1974) 10 Cal.3d 703, 715 , overruled on another ground by People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 163 .) We review the legal adequacy of an instruction de novo.

2021Code, § 702, subd. (a).) The declarant, in showing his or her competency, must do more than make a conclusory statement to that effect; he or she must “allege facts showing his [or her] competence.” (Roy Brothers Drilling Co. v. Jones (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 175, 182 .) The trial court concluded that Davey did not have personal knowledge as to whether child support pursuant to the judgment had been paid by Graham.

2021And, of course, why [Davey’s] mother didn’t pursue anything over the past 40-plus years.” 8 102 Cal.App.4th 977, 981 [summary judgment may not be defeated by “mere speculation and conjecture, but instead [the opponent of the motion] must produce admissible evidence raising a triable issue of fact”].) This includes the requirement that declarations “show the declarant’s personal knowledge and competency to testify, state facts and not just conclusions, and not include inadmissible hearsay or opinion.” (Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 761 ; see also Evid.

2016(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 148-149, 154 (Breverman).) Instruction on a lesser included offense is required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is “ ‘ “substantial enough to merit [the jury’s] 11 consideration.” ’ ” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 623 (Taylor), quoting Breverman, supra, at p. 162 .) This substantial evidence requirement is met by “ ‘ “evidence from which a [reasonable] jury . . . could . . . conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” ( Breverman, supra, at p. 162 .) “In deciding whe

2015(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 148-149, 154 (Breverman).) Instruction on a lesser included offense is required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is “ ‘ “substantial enough to merit [the jury’s] consideration.” ’ ” (People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 623 (Taylor), quoting Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 162 .) This substantial evidence requirement is met by “ ‘ “evidence from which a [reasonable] jury . . . could . . . conclude[]” ’ that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed.” (Breverman, at p. 162.) “[T]he use of han

2014For instance, in Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843 , a husband and wife stipulated that Dr. Drapkin would provide services as an independent psychologist, evaluate the facts and circumstances, and render nonbinding findings and recommendations in a child custody dispute.