done error in California

2026Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corporation v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 (Foreman); Pope, at p. 1246; see Ashby, at p. 513.) Teasdale has failed to follow this basic rule of appellate practice.

2026Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.” ’ ” Quoting Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 .].) “A reviewing court will not independently review the record to make up for the appellant’s failure to carry its burden on appeal.” (E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School Dist. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1267 , 1285.) Thus, for multiple reasons, Sheehan has waived any substantial evidence challenge.

2025Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.” ’ ” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ; see also Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 [“An appellant . . . who cites and discusses only evidence in her favor fails to demonstrate any error and waives the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.”]; Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218 [party challenging sufficiency of the evidence forfeited the issue by failing to mention the trial court’s findings and omitting the facts that supported those findi

2024Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 ; accord, Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218 .) Here, Jackson fails to discuss the relevant material evidence, resulting in a forfeiture of his contention of insufficient evidence.

2016Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ (Italics added.) [Citations.]” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 ; accord, In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 ; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Appeal, §365, pp. 421–423, and §368, pp. 425–426.) Despite Ward’s flouting of those rules, we turn to Ward’s arguments.

2013Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.‟ [Citations.]” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 ; accord, In re Marriage of Fink (1979) 25 Cal.3d 877, 887 .) What Wuerfel attempts here is merely to reargue the “facts” as she would have them, an argumentative presentation that not only violates the rules noted above, but also disregards the admonition that she is not to “merely reassert [her] position at . . . trial.” (Conderback, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 664, 687 ; accord, Albaugh v. Mt.

2025Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.” ’ ” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ; see also Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 [“An appellant . . . who cites and discusses only evidence in her favor fails to demonstrate any error and waives the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.”]; Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218 [party challenging sufficiency of the evidence forfeited the issue by failing to mention the trial court’s findings and omitting the facts that supported those findi

2024Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.”. . .’” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 (Nwosu).) SIL and Morongo argue that appellants forfeited their substantial evidence claim because their Opening Brief presents only the evidence supporting their case and “omits evidence which the trial court relied upon in reaching its decision.” We agree.

2026Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ”]; Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86 , 96–97 [finding waiver for failure to set out all material facts and noting that appellant improperly “skewed” facts in his own favor].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2026Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ”]; Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86 , 96–97 [finding waiver for failure to set out all material facts and noting that appellant improperly “skewed” facts in his own favor].) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2006Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 ]; see In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. 2 [ 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 , 90 P.3d 746 ] [loss of right to challenge ruling on appeal properly termed forfeiture, not waiver].) Essentially, this rule rests on the premise that if the appellants fail to present us with all the relevant *750 evidence, then the appellants cannot carry their burden of showing the evidence was insufficient to support the agency’s decision because support for that decis

2006Unless this is done the error is deemed to be [forfeited].’ (Italics added.) [Citations.]” (Ibid.; see also In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293, fn. 2.) Under heading 6 of her brief, appellant’s counsel claims there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings that resulted in removal of the minor from appellant’s custody.

1986Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 ], citing Davis v. Lucas (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 407 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 479 ]; Gold v. Maxwell (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 213, 217 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 226 ]; Cooper v. Cooper (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 326, 331 [ 335 P.2d 983 ]; see also People v. Bestline Products, Inc. (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 879 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 767 ].) Unfortunately, Dr. Noguchi’s brief devotes only two pages (46-47) to the “substantial evidence” issue.

1986Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 162 , 479 P.2d 362 ], citing Davis v. Lucas (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 407 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 479 ]; Gold v. Maxwell (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 213, 217 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 226 ]; Cooper v. Cooper (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 326, 331 [ 335 P.2d 983 ]; see also People v. Bestline Products, Inc. (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 879 [ 132 Cal.Rptr. 767 ].) Unfortunately, Dr. Noguchi’s brief devotes only two pages (46-47) to the “substantial evidence” issue.

2015Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” ’ [Citations.]” (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 749 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ].) 11 c.

2015Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” ’ [Citations.]” (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 749 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ].) 11 c.

2026Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” ’ ” (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735, 749 (Myers).) We find waiver applies to all issues.

2014Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ (Italics added.) [Citations.]” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 ; accord, Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735, 749 .) D.

2024(Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 739 (Schmidlin) [“failure to present a full and fair summary of the evidence supporting the judgment effects a ‘waive[r]’ of any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence”].) “Contrary to fundamental tenets of appellate practice [citation] the facts stated and the inferences drawn in [appellants’ briefs] are those most favorable to [appellants] rather than to [SIL and Morongo].

2013We grant that motion. 11 Schmidlin v. City of Palo Alto (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 728, 738 [“‘A party who challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a particular finding must summarize the evidence on that point, favorable and unfavorable, and show how and why it is insufficient.’ . . .

2021(See Holguin v. Dish Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1326-1327 [rejecting challenge to denial of JNOV motion, where appellants failed to “set forth all material evidence relating to their contentions” and did “not attempt to analyze the evidence presented at trial in light of the jury instructions actually given”].) It is plain, based upon a comparison of the statement of facts in Read’s opening brief with the detailed recitation of the evidence we have presented, ante, that Read has not met his obligation “to set forth in [his] brief all the material evidence on the point and not mer

2019Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived." ' " (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 ; see also Holguin v. Dish Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310 , 1326–1327.) There are good reasons for this forfeiture rule.

1971Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” (Italics added.) (Kruckow v. Lesser (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 198, 200 [ 244 P.2d 19 ] and cases there collected; Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irr.

1971Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” (Italics added.) (Kruckow v. Lesser (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 198, 200 [ 244 P.2d 19 ] and cases there collected; Sutro Heights Land Co. v. Merced Irr.

1969What is said in Hickson v. Thielman, 147 Cal.App.2d 11, 14, 15 [ 304 P.2d 122 ], is particularly appropriate: "The first contention of defendants is that the findings are unsupported by the evidence.

1969What is said in Hickson v. Thielman, 147 Cal.App.2d 11, 14, 15 [ 304 P.2d 122 ], is particularly appropriate: "The first contention of defendants is that the findings are unsupported by the evidence.

2025(See Schneer, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1286–1287.) A party challenging a ruling for lack of substantial evidence must “‘set forth, discuss, and analyze all the evidence on that point, both favorable and unfavorable.’” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 .) “Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.” (Ibid.) Additionally, “[a]n appellant who fails to cite accurately to the record forfeits the issue or argument on appeal that is presented without the record reference.” (Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 589 .) By failing to cite e

2024Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ” (Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 ; accord, Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218 .) Here, Jackson fails to discuss the relevant material evidence, resulting in a forfeiture of his contention of insufficient evidence.

2021Unless this is done the error assigned is deemed to be waived.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 881-882, original italics.) “This burden is a ‘daunting’ one.” (Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 409 .) These principles apply to an appellate challenge to a denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

2014Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.” [Citations.]’” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ; Brockey v. Moore (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 86, 96-97 [same]; Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 409-410 [“An appellate court will consider the sufficiency of the evidence to support a given finding only after a party tenders such an issue together with a fair summary of the evidence bearing on the challenged finding, particularly including evidence that arguably supports it”].) Alvandi has clearly failed to meet his burden on appeal.

2026“Ordinarily, when an appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact, we apply the substantial evidence standard of review.” (Pruchnik v. JCCP4621 Common Benefit Committee (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 35 , 47.) “But where ‘ “the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals, it is misleading to characterize the failure-of-proof issue as whether substantial evidence supports the judgment.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 47-48; accord, Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc

2025(Slone v. El Centro Regional Medical Center (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1160 , 1173 (Slone).) “Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid., quoting Foreman & Clark Corporation v. Fallon (1973) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 (Foreman).) “When an appellant’s opening brief states only the favorable facts, ignoring evidence favorable to respondent, the appellate court may treat the substantial evidence issues as waived and presume the record contains evidence to sustain every finding of fact.” (Slone, supra, at pp. 1173–1174, citing Delta Stewardship Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5

2025Unless this is done the error is deemed waived.” ’ ” (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246 ; see also Rayii v. Gatica (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408 [“An appellant . . . who cites and discusses only evidence in her favor fails to demonstrate any error and waives the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.”]; Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 209, 218 [party challenging sufficiency of the evidence forfeited the issue by failing to mention the trial court’s findings and omitting the facts that supported those findi