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.
89 California opinions name it 3 courts 1896–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Comm. v. CTY OF LOS ANGELESgreen2 sentences2024(Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 , 514–515 (Topanga).) This findings requirement “serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions.” (Id. at p. 516.) Further, the “findings enable the reviewing court to trace and examine the agency’s mode of analysis.” (Ibid.; see also Oduyale v. California State Bd. of Pharmacy (2019) 41 Cal.App. 2014In so doing, we believe that the Legislature must have contemplated that the agency would reveal this route.” (Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515 .) “Among other functions, a findings requirement serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. [Citations.] In addition, findings enable the reviewing court to trace and examine t | 3 | 13 |
Saad v. City of Berkeleygreen2 sentences2022An advertisement on a display could be significant to a local business regardless of whether payment for the advertisement is made by, for example, a movie studio or automaker, instead of the local business. 34 findings’ . . . leaves no room for the conclusion that the Legislature would have been content to have a reviewing court speculate as to the administrative agency’s basis for decision.” (Accord, Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214 [“In Topanga . . . , the California Supreme Court announced that the findings requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 was 2022An advertisement on a display could be significant to a local business regardless of whether payment for the advertisement is made by, for example, a movie studio or automaker, instead of the local business. 34 findings’ . . . leaves no room for the conclusion that the Legislature would have been content to have a reviewing court speculate as to the administrative agency’s basis for decision.” (Accord, Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1214 [“In Topanga . . . , the California Supreme Court announced that the findings requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 was | 3 | 3 |
Wells v. State Bargreen2 sentences1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr 1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr | 3 | 3 |
Magee v. State Bargreen2 sentences1981(In re Arnoff (1978) 22 Cal.3d 740, 747 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 479 , 586 P.2d 960 ]; Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ].) In that regard, we afford great weight to the findings of the hearing panel which saw and heard the witnesses. 1981(In re Arnoff (1978) 22 Cal.3d 740, 747 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 479 , 586 P.2d 960 ]; Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ].) In that regard, we afford great weight to the findings of the hearing panel which saw and heard the witnesses. | 3 | 3 |
Franklin v. State Bargreen2 sentences1990Although the review department accepted the hearing panel's findings, it recommended disbarment and suggested that petitioner prove rehabilitation in a proceeding for reinstatement. *549 DISCUSSION (1) In reviewing matters of attorney discipline, we undertake an independent examination of the record. ( Hitchcock v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 690, 695 [ 257 Cal. Rptr. 696 , 771 P.2d 394 ]; Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 738 , 715 P.2d 699 ].) Although we accord substantial weight both to the review department's recommendation as to discipline and to the finding 1990Although the review department accepted the hearing panel's findings, it recommended disbarment and suggested that petitioner prove rehabilitation in a proceeding for reinstatement. *549 DISCUSSION (1) In reviewing matters of attorney discipline, we undertake an independent examination of the record. ( Hitchcock v. State Bar (1989) 48 Cal.3d 690, 695 [ 257 Cal. Rptr. 696 , 771 P.2d 394 ]; Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 224 Cal. Rptr. 738 , 715 P.2d 699 ].) Although we accord substantial weight both to the review department's recommendation as to discipline and to the finding | 2 | 3 |
Himmel v. State Bargreen2 sentences1988(Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 549 [237 Cal.Rptr. *261 168, 736 P.2d 754 ].) When the findings rest primarily on testimonial evidence, “ ‘we are reluctant to reverse the decision of the [hearing panel], which was in a better position to evaluate conflicting statements after observing the demeanor of the witnesses and the character of their testimony.’ ” (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ].) It is also settled that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the findings are not supported by the evidence. 1988(Greenbaum v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 543, 549 [237 Cal.Rptr. *261 168, 736 P.2d 754 ].) When the findings rest primarily on testimonial evidence, “ ‘we are reluctant to reverse the decision of the [hearing panel], which was in a better position to evaluate conflicting statements after observing the demeanor of the witnesses and the character of their testimony.’ ” (Himmel v. State Bar (1971) 4 Cal.3d 786, 794 [ 94 Cal.Rptr. 825 , 484 P.2d 993 ].) It is also settled that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the findings are not supported by the evidence. | 2 | 3 |
Skelly v. State Bargreen2 sentences1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr 1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr | 2 | 2 |
Prantil v. State Bargreen2 sentences1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr 1986Petitioner testified that he had not understood at the first hearing that he was being asked "the current status" of the Edmonson case. (1) This court is not, of course, bound by the findings of facts of the hearing panel or the review department. (1 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Attorneys, § 511, p. 553.) "This court must independently examine the record, reweigh the evidence, and pass on its sufficiency in State Bar disciplinary matters." ( Prantil v. State Bar (1979) 23 Cal.3d 243, 246 [ 152 Cal. Rptr. 351 , 589 P.2d 859 ]; Wells v. State Bar (1978) 20 Cal.3d 708, 713 [ 144 Cal. Rptr | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. State Bargreen2 sentences1978We accord great weight to the findings of a hearing panel (see Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ]; Lewis v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 704, 712-713 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ]). 1978We accord great weight to the findings of a hearing panel (see Magee v. State Bar (1975) 13 Cal.3d 700, 708 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 485 , 532 P.2d 133 ]; Lewis v. State Bar (1973) 9 Cal.3d 704, 712-713 [ 108 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 511 P.2d 1173 ]). | 2 | 2 |
Sharove v. Middlemangreen2 sentences1980(Sharove v. Middleman (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 199, 202 [ 303 P.2d 900 ].) The frustration of losing litigants and their attorneys who are frequently faced with findings of fact prepared by successful counsel in terms so “ultimate” that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine either the factual basis or legal theory of the decision is a frustration which is frequently shared by reviewing courts. 1980(Sharove v. Middleman (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 199, 202 [ 303 P.2d 900 ].) The frustration of losing litigants and their attorneys who are frequently faced with findings of fact prepared by successful counsel in terms so “ultimate” that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine either the factual basis or legal theory of the decision is a frustration which is frequently shared by reviewing courts. | 2 | 2 |
Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commissiongreen2 sentences1974Com'n (1938) 96 F.2d 554, 559 [ 68 App.D.C. 282 ].) Among other functions, a findings requirement serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. 1974Com'n (1938) 96 F.2d 554, 559 [ 68 App.D.C. 282 ].) Among other functions, a findings requirement serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions supportive of its ultimate decision; the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Salazargreen1 sentence2024Following our review of the briefs, we granted the parties an opportunity to brief the issues of retroactivity (§ 607, subd. (m); Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 744–745), 4. and remedy (People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425 (Salazar); In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 , 715–716; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 (Gutierrez)) in light of Assembly Bill 2361, Senate Bill 545, and Senate Bill 135. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Durangreen1 sentence2024(See Duran, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 292, fn. 11 .) Here, the court’s findings and analysis based on evidence in the record were sufficient to show a manifest need for the restraint chair, as defendant’s disruptive behavior during prior court proceedings, including his threat against defense counsel, justified the imposition of restraints. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2024Following our review of the briefs, we granted the parties an opportunity to brief the issues of retroactivity (§ 607, subd. (m); Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 744–745), 4. and remedy (People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425 (Salazar); In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 , 715–716; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 (Gutierrez)) in light of Assembly Bill 2361, Senate Bill 545, and Senate Bill 135. | 1 | 1 |
Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2021Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) Furthermore, “[i]t is a basic presumption indulged in by reviewing courts that the trial court is presumed to have known and applied the correct statutory and case law in the exercise of its official duties.” (People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1032 ; accord, People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Accordingly, we presume the trial court accorded the Board’s findings a presumption of correctness and imposed the burden on Rodriguez to | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coddingtongreen1 sentence2021Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) Furthermore, “[i]t is a basic presumption indulged in by reviewing courts that the trial court is presumed to have known and applied the correct statutory and case law in the exercise of its official duties.” (People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1032 ; accord, People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Accordingly, we presume the trial court accorded the Board’s findings a presumption of correctness and imposed the burden on Rodriguez to | 1 | 1 |
| Business Electronics Corp. v. Sharp Electronics Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Callahangreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Funeral Concepts v. Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conway v. Pasadena Humane Societygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoopes v. Dolangreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arnel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Memrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Keohanegreen | 1 | 1 |
| California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Weidertgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodgers v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lubetzky v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kwasnik v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kennedy v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hitchcock v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frazer v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chang v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Demain v. State Bargreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Dedmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lamb v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Boardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection
green
2 sentences2009Proc., § 1094.5) is “to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision” and to show the “analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action.” (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the agency must render findings that are sufficient “both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [agency’s] action.” (Topanga, at p. 514.) The findings requirement “serves to conduce the administrative 2009Proc., § 1094.5) is “to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence and ultimate decision” and to show the “analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action.” (Topanga, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 515.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the agency must render findings that are sufficient “both to enable the parties to determine whether and on what basis they should seek review and, in the event of review, to apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the [agency’s] action.” (Topanga, at p. 514.) The findings requirement “serves to conduce the administrative | 2 | 2009–2024 |
In Re Marriage of Schlafly
green
2 sentences2018Careful adherence to the statutory framework, including the application of discretion only at the appropriate stages, " 'respects the rebuttable correctness of the mechanically calculated guideline amount, and allows child support awards to properly reflect the parents' standard of living without doing violence to the word "income" ....' " ( In re Roger Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747 , 758-759, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 .) It also ensures that when a court applies its discretion to reduce income below guideline, it does so pursuant to the correct standard and provides the explanation required by 2018Careful adherence to the statutory framework, including the application of discretion only at the appropriate stages, " 'respects the rebuttable correctness of the mechanically calculated guideline amount, and allows child support awards to properly reflect the parents' standard of living without doing violence to the word "income" ....' " ( In re Roger Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747 , 758-759, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 .) It also ensures that when a court applies its discretion to reduce income below guideline, it does so pursuant to the correct standard and provides the explanation required by | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hall v. Hall
green
2 sentences2018Careful adherence to the statutory framework, including the application of discretion only at the appropriate stages, " 'respects the rebuttable correctness of the mechanically calculated guideline amount, and allows child support awards to properly reflect the parents' standard of living without doing violence to the word "income" ....' " ( In re Roger Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747 , 758-759, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 274 .) It also ensures that when a court applies its discretion to reduce income below guideline, it does so pursuant to the correct standard and provides the explanation required by 2018Careful adherence to the statutory framework, including the application of discretion only at the appropriate stages, “ ‘respects the rebuttable correctness of the mechanically calculated guideline amount, and allows child support awards to properly reflect the parents’ standard of living without doing violence to the word “income” . . . .’ ” (In re Roger Schlafly (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 747 , 758–759.) It also ensures that when a court applies its discretion to reduce income below guideline, it does so pursuant to the correct standard and provides the explanation required by federal law. (§ 40 | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Environmental Defense Fund, Incorporated v. William D. Ruckelshaus
green
2 sentences1974Because, notes Judge Bazelon, it provides a framework for principled decision-making, a findings requirement serves to “diminish the importance of judicial review by enhancing the integrity of the administrative process.” (Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus (D.C.Cir. 1971) 439 F.2d 584, 598 .) By exposing the administrative agency’s mode of analysis, findings help to constrict and define the scope of the judicial function. 1974Cir.1971) 439 F.2d 584, 598 .) By exposing the administrative agency's mode of analysis, findings help to constrict and define the scope of the judicial function. | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel & Emly
green
1 sentence2026(Roman Catholic Archbishop, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 218 .) 8 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon
green
1 sentence2025A. Waiver of Accounting Appellants argue there was insufficient evidence to support the probate court’s findings that the parties had waived an accounting of the trusts in their settlement. “ ‘When a finding of fact is attacked on the ground that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradicted which will support the finding of fact.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 .) On a substantial evidence challenge, we “ ‘con | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Estate of Young
green
1 sentence2025A. Waiver of Accounting Appellants argue there was insufficient evidence to support the probate court’s findings that the parties had waived an accounting of the trusts in their settlement. “ ‘When a finding of fact is attacked on the ground that there is not any substantial evidence to sustain it, the power of an appellate court begins and ends with the determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence contradicted or uncontradicted which will support the finding of fact.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 .) On a substantial evidence challenge, we “ ‘con | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Estrada
green
1 sentence2024Following our review of the briefs, we granted the parties an opportunity to brief the issues of retroactivity (§ 607, subd. (m); Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 744–745), 4. and remedy (People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425 (Salazar); In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 , 715–716; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391 (Gutierrez)) in light of Assembly Bill 2361, Senate Bill 545, and Senate Bill 135. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Combs
green
1 sentence2024(See People v. Combs (2004) 34 Cal.4th 821, 838 .) II. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Cravens
green
1 sentence2023As discussed, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “‘[o]n appeal we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 .) “The conviction shall stand ‘unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction.]”’” (Id. at p. 508.) | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Augustus v. ABM Security Services
green
1 sentence2023“California law requires employers to relieve their employees of all work-related duties and employer control during 10-minute rest periods.” (Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 257, 272 ; § 226.7, subd. (b) [“An employer shall not require any employee to work during a . . . rest . . . period mandated” by IWC wage order]; Wage Order 5, subd. 12(A) [requiring 10 minutes net rest time per four hours worked].) First, the trial court’s findings and analysis make clear it considered whether the rest break policy was compliant in practice. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Loza
green
1 sentence2023As discussed, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “‘[o]n appeal we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.]” (People v. Cravens (2012) 53 Cal.4th 500, 507 .) “The conviction shall stand ‘unless it appears “that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support [the conviction.]”’” (Id. at p. 508.) | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. MacK
green
1 sentence2021Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) Furthermore, “[i]t is a basic presumption indulged in by reviewing courts that the trial court is presumed to have known and applied the correct statutory and case law in the exercise of its official duties.” (People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1032 ; accord, People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Accordingly, we presume the trial court accorded the Board’s findings a presumption of correctness and imposed the burden on Rodriguez to | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co.
green
1 sentence2021Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 631 .) Furthermore, “[i]t is a basic presumption indulged in by reviewing courts that the trial court is presumed to have known and applied the correct statutory and case law in the exercise of its official duties.” (People v. Mack (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1026, 1032 ; accord, People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 , overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 .) Accordingly, we presume the trial court accorded the Board’s findings a presumption of correctness and imposed the burden on Rodriguez to | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Dhillon v. John Muir Health green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Marriage of Burgess green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Butte County Department of Employment & Social Services v. G.C. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Jane J. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| People v. Ault green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Alan S. v. Superior Court of Orange Cty. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Marriage of Keech green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| In Re Marriage of Cueva green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Soule v. General Motors Corp. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Broden v. Marin Humane Society green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Schmier v. Supreme Court of California green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| In Re Arafiles green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Wheeler v. Department of Motor Vehicles neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Imachi v. Department of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Desmond v. County of Contra Costa green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| East Peninsula Education Council, Inc. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Jean v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of S.F. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Jones v. Kaiser Industries Corp. green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.
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.