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.
14 California opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 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 Marriage of Mixgreen2 sentences2026(Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570 , 581–582 (Schmidt).) Substantial evidence is evidence that is of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1005–1006); the testimony of a single credible witness may constitute substantial evidence (In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 (Mix)). 30 “Under this standard of review, parties challenging a trial court’s factfinding bear an ‘enormous burden.’ ”26 (Schmidt, at p. 582.) Because Voice resists the governing standard of review, it does not 2026(Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 570 , 581–582 (Schmidt).) Substantial evidence is evidence that is of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1005–1006); the testimony of a single credible witness may constitute substantial evidence (In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 (Mix)). 30 “Under this standard of review, parties challenging a trial court’s factfinding bear an ‘enormous burden.’ ”26 (Schmidt, at p. 582.) Because Voice resists the governing standard of review, it does not | 2 | 2 |
Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2026(Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465 (Sonic).) Under the highly deferential substantial evidence test, we accept all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s judgment or finding, looking only at the evidence supporting the successful party and completely disregarding contrary evidence. 2026(Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. v. AAE Systems, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 456, 465 (Sonic).) Under the highly deferential substantial evidence test, we accept all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences supporting the trial court’s judgment or finding, looking only at the evidence supporting the successful party and completely disregarding contrary evidence. | 2 | 2 |
Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Commissiongreen2 sentences2017This includes its observation that where the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( Western States , at pp. 570-571, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ; see also id . at p. 572, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ["Were we to hold that courts could freely consider extra-record evidence in these circumstances, we would in effect transform the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of revie 2017This includes its observation that where the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( Western States , at pp. 570-571, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ; see also id . at p. 572, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ["Were we to hold that courts could freely consider extra-record evidence in these circumstances, we would in effect transform the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of revie | 2 | 2 |
Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2017This includes its observation that where the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( Western States , at pp. 570-571, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ; see also id . at p. 572, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ["Were we to hold that courts could freely consider extra-record evidence in these circumstances, we would in effect transform the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of revie 2017This includes its observation that where the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( Western States , at pp. 570-571, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ; see also id . at p. 572, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ["Were we to hold that courts could freely consider extra-record evidence in these circumstances, we would in effect transform the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of revie | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Piedra v. Dugan
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova
green
2 sentences2023Resources Code, § 21168.5.) Such an abuse is established ‘if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 , fn. omitted (Citizens for Responsible Growth).) “Compared with review for procedural error, ‘we accord greater deference to the agency’s substantive factual conclusions.’ [Citation.] We apply ‘the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review in Public Resources Code section 2116 2023Resources Code, § 21168.5.) Such an abuse is established ‘if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 , fn. omitted (Citizens for Responsible Growth).) “Compared with review for procedural error, ‘we accord greater deference to the agency’s substantive factual conclusions.’ [Citation.] We apply ‘the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review in Public Resources Code section 2116 | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Jennifer L. v. Marjorie L.
green
1 sentence2025(Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 .) And because the determination of “[w]hat constitutes the best interest of a child presents an inherently factual issue” (Guardianship of A.L. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 257, 268 ), our review of this determination is governed by the highly deferential substantial evidence standard (Burgess, at p. 32). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Pope v. Babick
green
1 sentence2025(Pope v. Babick (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1246 .) And because the determination of “[w]hat constitutes the best interest of a child presents an inherently factual issue” (Guardianship of A.L. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 257, 268 ), our review of this determination is governed by the highly deferential substantial evidence standard (Burgess, at p. 32). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Zamudio
green
2 sentences2022Even applying the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review (see Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 15 p. 357), we decide on this record that the evidence falls short. 2022Even applying the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review (see Zamudio, supra, 43 Cal.4th at 15 p. 357), we decide on this record that the evidence falls short. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Zuckerman
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hope v. California Youth Authority
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Angela G.
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Quigley v. McClellan CA4/1
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1 LLC v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. 2018When a jury's factual finding is challenged on appeal, we review the record under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of review. *767 ( Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483 , 1489, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 .) If we find substantial evidence we must uphold the jury's finding, even if we would have made a different decision. ( Citizens Business Bank v. Gevorgian (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 602 , 613, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 49 .) Substantial evidence "is not synonymous with 'any' evidence," the evidence must be "reasonable, credible and of solid value." ( Quigley v. McClellan (2013) 214 Cal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
San Joaquin County Local Agency Formation Commission v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2017This includes its observation that where the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( Western States , at pp. 570-571, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ; see also id . at p. 572, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 , 888 P.2d 1268 ["Were we to hold that courts could freely consider extra-record evidence in these circumstances, we would in effect transform the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of revie | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences2009(Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 572 .) “The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency’s determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency’s decision.” (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 117 .) That deferential review standard flows from the fact that “the agency has the discretion to resolve factual issues and to make policy decisions.” (Id. at p. 120.) The CEQA Guidelines define substantial evidence as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from 2009Substantive Claims Compared with review for procedural error, "we accord greater deference to the agency's substantive factual conclusions." ( Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435.) We apply "the highly deferential substantial evidence standard of *985 review in Public Resources Code section 21168.5" to such determinations. ( Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 572 .) "The agency is the finder of fact and we must indulge all reasonable inferences from the evidence that would support the agency's determinations and resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the agency's decision." ( | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.