Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 California opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2024 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re SCgreen2 sentences2023While it is true an appellant must demonstrate error by presenting meaningful legal analysis supported by citation to facts in the record and legal authority (S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408), this argument came late in the brief after Father had already discussed the same facts. 2022VI, § 13 [forbidding reversal of judgment absent a showing of error that “has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”].) Thus, an appellant must demonstrate error through “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 , italics added; see also Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 728 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “ ‘When legal argument with citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat t | 3 | 5 |
In Re Crystal J.green2 sentences2007A parent “lacks standing to raise issues affecting another person’s interests.” (In re Gary P., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 876 .) In other words, “an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal.” (In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 189 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 ].) This proposition has been repeated numerous times, in many different factual contexts. 2007A parent “lacks standing to raise issues affecting another person’s interests.” (In re Gary P., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 876 .) In other words, “an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal.” (In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 189 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 ].) This proposition has been repeated numerous times, in many different factual contexts. | 2 | 3 |
Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLCgreen2 sentences2023(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 (S.C.); Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590, fn. 8 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)6 “When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.]” (S.C., supra, at p. 408.) Appellate briefs also must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere technical requirement; it is ‘designed to lighten the 2023(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 (S.C.); Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590, fn. 8 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).)6 “When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ [Citations.]” (S.C., supra, at p. 408.) Appellate briefs also must “[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point.” (Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “This is not a mere technical requirement; it is ‘designed to lighten the | 2 | 2 |
In Re Daniel D.green2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2 |
In Re Devin M.green2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2 |
In Re Vanessa Z.green2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2 |
Okasaki v. City of Elk Grovegreen1 sentence2022(Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1045, fn. 1 ; Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 656 .) . . . | 1 | 1 |
Martine v. Heavenly Valley Ltd. P'shipgreen1 sentence2022VI, § 13 [forbidding reversal of judgment absent a showing of error that “has resulted in a miscarriage of justice”].) Thus, an appellant must demonstrate error through “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 , italics added; see also Martine v. Heavenly Valley Limited Partnership (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 715, 728 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) “ ‘When legal argument with citation to authority is not furnished on a particular point, we may treat t | 1 | 1 |
BRUNIUS v. Parrishgreen1 sentence2013Shadeed has therefore failed to satisfy his “affirmative burden to demonstrate error.” (Brunius v. Parrish (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 838, 859 [“It is the appellant's affirmative burden to demonstrate error”]; Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 (Bullock) [an appellant must demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority].) Shadeed next asserts that the trial court should have granted an application for default judgment he filed in April of 2012, which would have precluded consideration of the State’s d | 1 | 1 |
Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.green1 sentence2013Shadeed has therefore failed to satisfy his “affirmative burden to demonstrate error.” (Brunius v. Parrish (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 838, 859 [“It is the appellant's affirmative burden to demonstrate error”]; Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 655, 685 (Bullock) [an appellant must demonstrate error through reasoned argument, citation to the appellate record, and discussion of legal authority].) Shadeed next asserts that the trial court should have granted an application for default judgment he filed in April of 2012, which would have precluded consideration of the State’s d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Keyes v. Bowen
green
2 sentences2024(Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647 , 655– 656.) In short, an appellant must demonstrate error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate record. 2020(Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647 , 655–656.) In short, an appellant must demonstrate error based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to an adequate record. | 3 | 2020–2024 |
Flores v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation CA5
green
2 sentences2023(Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 808 , 839.) 6 defeat the presumption of correctness.’ ” (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 .) The appellant must demonstrate error by presenting meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and facts in the record in the argument section of the brief. 2023(Kim v. TWA Construction, Inc. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 808 , 839.) 6 defeat the presumption of correctness.’ ” (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 .) The appellant must demonstrate error by presenting meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and facts in the record in the argument section of the brief. | 3 | 2020–2023 |
Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2024(Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547 , 556–557.) 2. 2020(Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547 , 556–557.) An appellant has the burden not only to show error but prejudice from that error. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
In Re Gary P.
green
2 sentences2007A parent "lacks standing to raise issues affecting another person's interests." ( In re Gary P., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 876 , 46 Cal.Rptr.2d 929 .) In other words, "an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal." ( In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 189 , 111 Cal. Rptr.2d 646 .) This proposition has been repeated numerous times, in many different factual contexts. 2007A parent “lacks standing to raise issues affecting another person’s interests.” (In re Gary P., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 876 .) In other words, “an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal.” (In re Crystal J. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 186, 189 [ 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 646 ].) This proposition has been repeated numerous times, in many different factual contexts. | 2 | 2001–2007 |
Jameson v. Desta
green
1 sentence2021(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608–609.) Accordingly, the appellant must demonstrate error or will lose the appeal. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Denham v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2020(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) An appellant has the burden not only to show error, but also to demonstrate prejudice from that error. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In Re Frank L.
green
2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Jasmine J.
green
2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re BG
green
2 sentences2001A de facto parent is one who "on a day-to-day basis, assumes the role of parent, seeking to fulfill both the child's physical needs and his psychological need for affection and care." ( In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 692, fn. 18, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 .) In In re B.G. the California *649 Supreme Court recognized that a de facto parent acquires an interest in the "`companionship, care, custody and management'" of the child and explained that the interest is one deserving of legal protection. ( Id. at pp. 692-693, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 .) Since a de facto parent has a re 2001A de facto parent is one who "on a day-to-day basis, assumes the role of parent, seeking to fulfill both the child's physical needs and his psychological need for affection and care." ( In re B.G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679 , 692, fn. 18, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 .) In In re B.G. the California *649 Supreme Court recognized that a de facto parent acquires an interest in the "`companionship, care, custody and management'" of the child and explained that the interest is one deserving of legal protection. ( Id. at pp. 692-693, 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 .) Since a de facto parent has a re | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Joel H.
green
2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Lauren P.
green
2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
In Re Carissa G.
green
2 sentences2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) 2001While a child normally has standing to appeal a juvenile dependency judgment, case law has established that an appellant must demonstrate error affecting his or her own interests in order to have standing to appeal. ( In re Devin M. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1541 , 68 Cal. Rptr.2d 666 ; In re Daniel D. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1823,1835 , 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 ; In re Vanessa Z. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 258, 261 , 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 313 .) In other words, the party must be in some way aggrieved by the judgment. ( In re Frank L. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 700, 703 , 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 88 ; In re Carissa G. (1999) | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.