parties disagree standard in California

2018Google relies on Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 362 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ( Advanced ) to contend we must review the superior court's order de novo.

2018Google relies on Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp. (1994) 9 Cal. 4th 362 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 581 , 885 P.2d 994 ( Advanced ) to contend we must review the superior court's order de novo.

2022Gonzalez urges us to follow a “two-step process” set forth by a sister Court of Appeal in People v. Taylor (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 720 (Taylor).

2022Gonzalez urges us to follow a “two-step process” set forth by a sister Court of Appeal in People v. Taylor (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 720 (Taylor).

2025The People seek review under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .

2024The Ostranders argue it is de novo because Skillman’s survey was insufficient as a matter of law, and because interpreting a deed is like interpreting a contract, and “interpreting a contract is a matter of law subject to de novo review.” (Estate of Jones (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 948 , 953; see also City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 232, 238 [“ ‘It is . . . solely a judicial function to interpret a written instrument unless the interpretation turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence’ ”]; In re Marriage of Nassimi (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 667, 688, fn. 33 [where no ex

2023(Pacific Gas, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 38-40; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. Golden State Warriors, LLC, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 818.) The Evidence Supports the Court’s Interpretation of the BSA Having concluded that the BSA is reasonably susceptible to Kiyomi’s interpretation, we move to the “second step in the analysis—the ultimate construction to be placed on the ambiguous language.” (Southern Cal. Edison, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 851 .) This step “may call for differing standards of review, depending upon the parol evidence used to construe the contract.” ( Winet, supra

2023(Pacific Gas, supra, 69 Cal.2d at pp. 38-40; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. Golden State Warriors, LLC, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 818.) The Evidence Supports the Court’s Interpretation of the BSA Having concluded that the BSA is reasonably susceptible to Kiyomi’s interpretation, we move to the “second step in the analysis—the ultimate construction to be placed on the ambiguous language.” (Southern Cal. Edison, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 851 .) This step “may call for differing standards of review, depending upon the parol evidence used to construe the contract.” ( Winet, supra

2022(People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 821 .) The Evidence Code only “require[s] sufficient specificity of evidence and legal grounds for the opposing party to respond if necessary, for the trial court to determine the question intelligently, and for the appellate court to have a record adequate to review for error.” (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1172 .) The parties disagree whether defense counsel’s objection to the exclusion of portions of Dr. Carpenter’s email and to certain information on his LinkedIn page during motions in limine was sufficient to preserve the constitutional

2022(People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 821 .) The Evidence Code only “require[s] sufficient specificity of evidence and legal grounds for the opposing party to respond if necessary, for the trial court to determine the question intelligently, and for the appellate court to have a record adequate to review for error.” (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1172 .) The parties disagree whether defense counsel’s objection to the exclusion of portions of Dr. Carpenter’s email and to certain information on his LinkedIn page during motions in limine was sufficient to preserve the constitutional

2020That, of course, is not the law. ‘Section 17203 makes injunctive relief “the primary form of relief available under the UCL,” while restitution is merely “ancillary.”’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 801- 802.) The parties disagree on our standard of review. “‘Whether a plaintiff “is entitled to a particular measure of damages is a question of law subject to de novo review. [Citations.] The amount of damages, on the other hand, is a fact question . . . 5 [and] an award of damages will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Madani v. Rabinowitz (2020)

2017Plaintiff relies on Neverkovec. supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 337 , which held a third party could not rely solely on a literal interpretation of the contractual language to prove he was an intended third party beneficiary.

2016We need not resolve the dispute because we would reach the same result applying either the abuse of discretion or de novo standard of review. 3 Williams’s reliance on Department of Mental Hygiene v. Bank of America (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 949 (Department) does not alter our conclusion.

2016(Dye, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at p. 978 ; see Curry v. Moody (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1554 [“evidence of the meaning the parties gave to the contract language is only relevant if the contract language itself is reasonably susceptible to that meaning”].) The parties disagree on the standard of review.

2016(See Crawford v. Gould (9th Cir. 1995) 56 F.3d 1162, 1165 .) 3 The parties disagree on the standard of review.