follows from the cardinal rule in California

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2025Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383 , 385–386 [ 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 ] [motion to dissolve preliminary injunction hearing]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706 , 713–714 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 65 ] [demurrer hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70 , 71–73 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 690 ] [transcript of argument to the jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 540 ] [failure to secure reporter’s transcript of settled statement].)” ( Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at pp. 186–187.) The court further explained that “[t]he reason for this f

2020(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 .)” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , 186–187.) 16 “A reporter’s transcript may not be necessary if the appeal involves legal issues requiring

2015(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 .) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.

2020(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 .)” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , 186–187.) 16 “A reporter’s transcript may not be necessary if the appeal involves legal issues requiring

2015(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) ‘In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.”’ (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 .) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error.

2025“In numerous situations, appellate courts have refused to reach the merits of an appellant’s claims because no reporter’s transcript of a pertinent proceeding or a suitable substitute was provided.” (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 186 .) “The reason for this follows from the cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown.” (Id. at p. 187.) “ ‘ “[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained o

2014Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , 186- 187 (Foust); see also Estate of Fain (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 973, 992 [“Where no reporter’s transcript has been provided and no error is apparent on the face of the existing appellate record, the judgment must be conclusively presumed correct as to all evidentiary matters.

2025But “exhibits may not be considered without a record of the testimony 7 given at trial.” (People v. Elkins (1992) 12 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4 ; see also Estate of Miller (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 352, 353 ; Williams v. Inglewood Board of Realtors (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 479, 481-482 .) Moreover, the issue is not whether some evidence supports Miessner, it is whether substantial evidence supports the judgment.

2014Proc., § 1094.5 petition]; Sui v. Landi (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 383, 385-386 [hearing on a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction]; Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 713-714 [demurrer 3 hearing]; Calhoun v. Hildebrandt (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 70, 71-73 [transcript of argument to jury]; Ehman v. Moore (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 462 [failure to secure either a reporter’s transcript or a settled statement as to offers of proof]; Wetsel v. Garibaldi (1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 4, 10 [order confirming arbitration award].) In Foust v. San Jose Const. Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181 , the

2014(See William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Board (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1, 15 [argument forfeited if not raised in opening brief]; Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1292, fn. 6 [“[a]rguments presented for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief are considered waived”].) 6 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2014(See William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Board (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1, 15 [argument forfeited if not raised in opening brief]; Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1292, fn. 6 [“[a]rguments presented for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief are considered waived”].) 6 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far

2011(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [ 86 Cal.Rptr. 65 , 468 P.2d 193 ].) “In the absence of a contrary showing in the record, all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action will be made by the appellate court. ‘[I]f any matters could have been presented to the court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed that such matters were presented.’ ” (Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 ].) This general principle of appellate practice is an aspect of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error. {State Far