typographical error in California

2003Sills, P. J., and O'Leary, J., concurred. 1 "The published text of section 324A uses ‘protect’ rather than ‘perform.’ Such was apparently a typographical error. [Citations.]” (Artiglio v. Corning Inc., supra, 18 Cal.4th 604, 613, fn. 4 .)

2002For ease of reference, we will refer to Contreras and Con Pro Serve collectively as "landlord" or "defendants." [2] We state the evidence supplied by appellant in accord with the summary judgment standard of review, which standard we discuss post. [3] The published text of section 324A uses the term "protect" rather than "perform." The California Supreme Court has observed that the published text apparently reflects a typographical error. ( Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 613, fn. 4 , 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 479 , 957 P.2d 1313 .) [4] The negligence, if any, of plaintiff's parents may

2025(See People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [“ ‘It is not open to question that a court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records so as to make these records reflect the true facts.’ ”].) Nor has Eric demonstrated he was prejudiced by the typographical error on the special verdict form or the correction of the error.

2014(People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186 [“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.”].) The typographical error in the abstract of judgment must be modified to correctly reflect the court’s pronouncement of sentence.

2022(See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(2); Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 59 [“notices of appeal are to be liberally construed so as to protect the right of appeal if it is reasonably clear what appellant was trying to appeal from, and where the respondent could not possibly have been misled or prejudiced”].) Finally, because Cruz’s February 5, 2021 notice of appeal was filed less than 60 days after the trial court entered the December 14, 2020 decision, Cruz’s 14 III.

1968(Vibert v. Berger (1966) 64 Cal.2d 65 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 886 , 410 P.2d 390 ]; Luz v. Lopes (1960) 55 Cal.2d 54, 59-60 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 161 , 358 P.2d 289 ]; Thompson v. Keckler (1964) 228 Cal.App.2d 199, 209-211 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 267 ]; Libby v. Conway (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 865, 867-868 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 830 ].) 9 On January 6, 1966 when the notice in this ease was filed, rule 1 (a), Buies on Appeal, read in pertinent part •.“...

1994(Zavala v. Board of Trustees (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1755, 1760-1761 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ].) In this case William’s attorney represented to the court that William would swear under penalty of perjury to the information on the income and expense declaration, except that a typographical error had been made with respect to his income.

1994(Zavala v. Board of Trustees (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1755, 1760-1761 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ].) In this case William’s attorney represented to the court that William would swear under penalty of perjury to the information on the income and expense declaration, except that a typographical error had been made with respect to his income.

1981Hammond Co. (1924) 67 Cal. App. 420, 423 [ 277 P. 938 ].) [4] *898 Respondent insists that the "Correction to Intended Decision" filed on November 6, 1980, reveals that the trial court did not intend its "Decision" to be a final judgment, noting that, in addition to correcting a typographical error, the document requested the executor to prepare "findings and form of Judgment...." However, the amendment merely corrected a clerical error, an action which the court was at liberty to take even if the earlier decision were deemed a final judgment. ( People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 8, 13 [

1981Hammond Co. (1924) 67 Cal. App. 420, 423 [ 277 P. 938 ].) [4] *898 Respondent insists that the "Correction to Intended Decision" filed on November 6, 1980, reveals that the trial court did not intend its "Decision" to be a final judgment, noting that, in addition to correcting a typographical error, the document requested the executor to prepare "findings and form of Judgment...." However, the amendment merely corrected a clerical error, an action which the court was at liberty to take even if the earlier decision were deemed a final judgment. ( People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 8, 13 [

1981Hammond Co. (1924) 67 Cal. App. 420, 423 [ 277 P. 938 ].) [4] *898 Respondent insists that the "Correction to Intended Decision" filed on November 6, 1980, reveals that the trial court did not intend its "Decision" to be a final judgment, noting that, in addition to correcting a typographical error, the document requested the executor to prepare "findings and form of Judgment...." However, the amendment merely corrected a clerical error, an action which the court was at liberty to take even if the earlier decision were deemed a final judgment. ( People v. Hartsell (1973) 34 Cal. App.3d 8, 13 [

1981A. Hammond Co. (1924) 67 Cal.App. 420, 423 [ 277 P. 938 ].) 4 Respondent insists that the “Correction to Intended Decision” filed on November 6, 1980, reveals that the trial court did not intend its “Decision” to be a final judgment, noting that, in addition to correcting a typographical error, the document requested the executor to prepare “findings and form of Judgment... . ” However, the amendment merely corrected a clerical error, an action which the court was at liberty to take even if the earlier decision were deemed a final judgment.

2026(Taylor, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 1240 .) The court evaluated the evidence in the record and the jury’s other findings and concluded that, in the absence of the typographical error, the jury would have answered “yes” to both questions.

2020(See Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1242-1243 [verdict form contained a typographical error causing jury to skip two questions.

2025(See id. at p. 869 [elements of accounting cause of action including that some balance is due plaintiff]; Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 179 [same]; see also Baxter v. Krieger (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 730, 731-732 [plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting where no amounts were found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff].) In their reply brief, plaintiffs argue that defendant’s “assertion that no cause of action for accounting can be supported due to a play on words or a typographical error in the First Amended Complaint is a non-issue. [Citation.] That is a quite sim

2025(Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529 [a party “effectively concedes” an issue by failing to address it in briefing]; People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 480 [an argument is conceded by failure to address it on appeal].) Instead, the only claim of error raised on appeal is the typographical error in identifying Geronimo as a maternal relative rather than a paternal relative.

2025(Huscher v. Wells Fargo Bank (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 956, 972 (Huscher).) “If the language of the instrument clearly sets forth the intent, the court does not consider extrinsic evidence; it only looks to extrinsic evidence in the event of an ambiguity.” (Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939, 949 (Trolan).) “[T]he court must consider the whole of the trust instrument, not just separate parts of it.” (Ibid.) Rule 7.776 provides a list of eight factors a court may consider in determining or approving a trustee’s compensation. 4 Appellant’s brief specifies section 4.01 of the trust, but this

2025(See People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 945 [“in the absence of any affirmative indication in the record that the trial court committed error . . . , relief on appeal is not appropriate”].) Although the court need not reconsider the People’s motion, there is a typographical error in the abstract of judgment that the court must correct on remand.

2025(See id. at p. 869 [elements of accounting cause of action including that some balance is due plaintiff]; Teselle v. McLoughlin (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 179 [same]; see also Baxter v. Krieger (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 730, 731-732 [plaintiff is not entitled to an accounting where no amounts were found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff].) In their reply brief, plaintiffs argue that defendant’s “assertion that no cause of action for accounting can be supported due to a play on words or a typographical error in the First Amended Complaint is a non-issue. [Citation.] That is a quite sim

2025(Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529 [a party “effectively concedes” an issue by failing to address it in briefing]; People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 480 [an argument is conceded by failure to address it on appeal].) Instead, the only claim of error raised on appeal is the typographical error in identifying Geronimo as a maternal relative rather than a paternal relative.

2025Specifically, the lease states that, “[i]n the event either party hereto desires to establish said fair market value of the [property] for the purpose of determining the monthly base rent[] to be paid by Tenant,” then (1) the “party desiring to establish the fair market value” “shall,” “[o]n or before twelve (12) months prior to each [reappraisal4] adjustment date” (which, as noted above, is the 4 Although the lease refers here to a “rental adjustment date,” this appears to be a typographical error because the full phrase states “rental adjustment date as provided hereinabove” and the lease de

2025There it says “ABP’s baseball position statement . . . 857 F.3d 466, 479, fn. 22 [declining to read literally a typographical error that was obviously contrary to intent established by context].) ABP offers the alternative explanation that the arbitrator did mean “Rule 33 should be followed” but was referring to rule 33(d) as overriding rule 33(b)’s exception to rule 24(h)’s written statement requirement where money damages are not at issue.

2025(Huscher v. Wells Fargo Bank (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 956, 972 (Huscher).) “If the language of the instrument clearly sets forth the intent, the court does not consider extrinsic evidence; it only looks to extrinsic evidence in the event of an ambiguity.” (Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939, 949 (Trolan).) “[T]he court must consider the whole of the trust instrument, not just separate parts of it.” (Ibid.) Rule 7.776 provides a list of eight factors a court may consider in determining or approving a trustee’s compensation. 4 Appellant’s brief specifies section 4.01 of the trust, but this

2024(Cf. Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700 , 758 [agreeing omission was “ ‘at most, a scrivener’s error’ ”].) Appellants do not establish 36 this typographical error, or BayWa’s subsequent clarification, impaired the “public’s ability to participate in the process and comment meaningfully on the EIR.” (SOC, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 674; see East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 292 (East Sacramento) [petitioner “failed to show . . . slight increase in housing units precluded meaningful decisionmaki