law also supports claim in California

2015Centex argues "there was substantial evidence to support a finding that by doing substandard work in the kitchen nook, Macord breached its warranty and became liable for express indemnity because Centex's contract liability to the Esparzas in part arose out of or related to Macord's work."5 The order granting directed verdict must be reversed if "there is substantial evidence to support [Centex's] claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim." (Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 .) Here, as Macord points out, Centex does not cite to any evidence supporting its c

2014Code, § 776 must be taken as true and unfavorable portions disregarded].) “If there is substantial evidence to support [appellant’s] claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim, we must reverse the judgment. [Citation.]” (Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ].) On appeal, the parties argue extensively whether East West Bank’s drawing down on the letter of credit extinguished DB NPI’s debt because the letter of credit required the draft to state that the claimed amount “represents and covers the unpaid indebtedness.” Respondents contend the

2014“We independently review an order granting a nonsuit, evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in his or her favor. [Citations.] ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ . . . .”’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s] claim, and if the state of the la

2013(Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ].) “ ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ ....”’ (Carson [v. Facilities Development Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d] at p. 839.) In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s] claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim, we must reverse the judgment.’ [Cit

2013(Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ].) “ ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ ....”’ (Carson [v. Facilities Development Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d] at p. 839.) In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s] claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim, we must reverse the judgment.’ [Cit

2013(Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 28 [ 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518 ].) “ ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ ....”’ (Carson [v. Facilities Development Co., supra, 36 Cal.3d] at p. 839.) In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s] claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim, we must reverse the judgment.’ [Cit

2013Proc., § 657, subd. (a)(2).) 6 The notice of appeal had also been filed by that time. 5 On appeal from a nonsuit, we independently review the order, “evaluating the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in his or her favor. [Citations.] „Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff‟s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff‟s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ. . . .”‟ [Citation.] In other words, „[i

2011II Discussion A. Standard of Review “We independently review an order granting a nonsuit, evaluating the evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in his or her favor. [Citations.] ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ ....”’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s]

2011II Discussion A. Standard of Review “We independently review an order granting a nonsuit, evaluating the evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in his or her favor. [Citations.] ‘Although a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ ....”’ [Citation.] In other words, ‘[i]f there is substantial evidence to support [the plaintiff’s]

2008(McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 802 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 ].) If the trial court’s ruling or decision is correct upon any theory of law applicable to the case, it will be upheld without regard to the considerations underlying the court’s determination.

2008(McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 802 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 885 ].) If the trial court’s ruling or decision is correct upon any theory of law applicable to the case, it will be upheld without regard to the considerations underlying the court’s determination.

2008DISCUSSION Standard of Review A directed verdict in favor of a defendant will be reversed if “there is substantial evidence to support plaintiffs’ claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim.” (Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Howard v. Owens Coming (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 629-630 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 ].) On appeal, we review the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning.

2008DISCUSSION Standard of Review A directed verdict in favor of a defendant will be reversed if “there is substantial evidence to support plaintiffs’ claim, and if the state of the law also supports that claim.” (Margolin v. Shemaria (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 891, 895 [ 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 502 ]; see Howard v. Owens Coming (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 629-630 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 386 ].) On appeal, we review the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning.

2000(Colbaugh v. Hartline (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1521 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 ].) Interpretation of statutes and administrative regulations, such as the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct for members of the State Bar, receives our independent review on appeal.

2000(Colbaugh v. Hartline (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1521 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 213 ].) Interpretation of statutes and administrative regulations, such as the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct for members of the State Bar, receives our independent review on appeal.