implied finding defense in California

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

1967(Ellis v. Community Chevrolet, Inc., 242 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 154 ]; Spindler Realty Corp. v. Monning, 243 Cal.App.2d 255, 275-276 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 7 ], cert. den. 385 U.S. 975 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 437 , 87 S.Ct. 515 ]; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 406 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 684 , 8 A.L.R.3d 1108 ].) Nevertheless application of the implied finding rule requires findings as to all material facts necessary to support the judgment.

2001These factors, combined with defendant's African-American heritage, constitute a prima facie case. ( People v. Turner, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 719 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 656 , 726 P.2d 102 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-281, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 .) Inasmuch as the evidence supports it, we presume the court made an implied finding that defense counsel had made a prima facie case. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 135 , 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980 ; People v. Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 716-717, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 818 P.2d 75 .) The burden therefore shif

2001These factors, combined with defendant's African-American heritage, constitute a prima facie case. ( People v. Turner, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 719 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 656 , 726 P.2d 102 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-281, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 .) Inasmuch as the evidence supports it, we presume the court made an implied finding that defense counsel had made a prima facie case. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 135 , 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980 ; People v. Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 716-717, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 818 P.2d 75 .) The burden therefore shif

2023(See Respect Life South San Francisco v. City of South San Francisco (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 449, 457 [an agency’s “determination that a project falls within one of CEQA’s categorical exemptions includes an implied finding that exceptions to those exemptions are inapplicable”]; San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022-1023 [same]; see also Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1386 ; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 731 .) 22 Relying on Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Ca

2023(See Respect Life South San Francisco v. City of South San Francisco (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 449, 457 [an agency’s “determination that a project falls within one of CEQA’s categorical exemptions includes an implied finding that exceptions to those exemptions are inapplicable”]; San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022-1023 [same]; see also Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1386 ; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 731 .) 22 Relying on Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Ca

2023(See Respect Life South San Francisco v. City of South San Francisco (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 449, 457 [an agency’s “determination that a project falls within one of CEQA’s categorical exemptions includes an implied finding that exceptions to those exemptions are inapplicable”]; San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022-1023 [same]; see also Madrigal v. City of Huntington Beach (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1386 ; Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 731 .) 22 Relying on Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Ca

2013This rule “‘is a natural and logical corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the 8 burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error.’ [Citation.]” (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 494 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two].) A litigant may avoid the implied finding doctrine by bringing alleged deficiencies in the statement of decision to the attention of the trial court.

2010Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1143 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ] [under abuse of discretion standard of review, appellate court must accept trial court’s implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence].) For that reason, the critical issue is whether substantial evidence supports an implied finding of waiver. 2.

2010Dept. of Corporations v. SpeeDee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1135, 1143 [ 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 816 , 980 P.2d 371 ] [under abuse of discretion standard of review, appellate court must accept trial court’s implied findings of fact supported by substantial evidence].) For that reason, the critical issue is whether substantial evidence supports an implied finding of waiver. 2.

2001These factors, combined with defendant's African-American heritage, constitute a prima facie case. ( People v. Turner, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 719 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 656 , 726 P.2d 102 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-281, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 .) Inasmuch as the evidence supports it, we presume the court made an implied finding that defense counsel had made a prima facie case. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 135 , 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980 ; People v. Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 716-717, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 818 P.2d 75 .) The burden therefore shif

2001These factors, combined with defendant's African-American heritage, constitute a prima facie case. ( People v. Turner, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 719 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 656 , 726 P.2d 102 ; People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 280-281, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 .) Inasmuch as the evidence supports it, we presume the court made an implied finding that defense counsel had made a prima facie case. ( People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 135 , 51 Cal. Rptr.2d 770 , 913 P.2d 980 ; People v. Fuentes, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 716-717, 286 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 818 P.2d 75 .) The burden therefore shif

2001(Compare U.S. v. Bishop (9th Cir.1992) 959 F.2d 820, 821 [prosecutor challenged African-American jurors because they "lived in a predominantly low-income, black neighborhood and [were] therefore likely to believe the police `pick on black people'"].) Here, the prosecutor placed the greatest emphasis on Juror No. 4845's place of residence.

1961(Amundson v. Shafer, 36 Cal.App. 398, 401 [ 172 P. 173 ]; Manfre v. Sharp, 210 Cal. 479 [ 292 P. 465 ].) Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1959 amendments to this section is not well founded, as these were designed to assure adequate review and remove the obstacle of the doctrine of implied finding (see 2 Witkin, California Procedure, 1959 Supp., § 118, pp. 166-167).

1961(Amundson v. Shafer, 36 Cal.App. 398, 401 [ 172 P. 173 ]; Manfre v. Sharp, 210 Cal. 479 [ 292 P. 465 ].) Plaintiff’s reliance on the 1959 amendments to this section is not well founded, as these were designed to assure adequate review and remove the obstacle of the doctrine of implied finding (see 2 Witkin, California Procedure, 1959 Supp., § 118, pp. 166-167).

1953(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598, 609 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].)” In Estate of Piatt, 81 Cal.App.2d 348, 352 [ 183 P.2d 919 ], where property was purchased entirely on credit with joint notes of husband and wife, where no portion of the purchase price was paid at the time of transfer and where the parties kept their earnings in separate bank accounts but otherwise used them for their common needs, the evidence was held sufficient to support an implied finding that the presumption mentioned in Civil Code, section 164, that the property conveyed in the name of a married woman is her separate property

1953(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598, 609 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].)” In Estate of Piatt, 81 Cal.App.2d 348, 352 [ 183 P.2d 919 ], where property was purchased entirely on credit with joint notes of husband and wife, where no portion of the purchase price was paid at the time of transfer and where the parties kept their earnings in separate bank accounts but otherwise used them for their common needs, the evidence was held sufficient to support an implied finding that the presumption mentioned in Civil Code, section 164, that the property conveyed in the name of a married woman is her separate property

1953In Attebury v. Wayland, 73 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 165 P.2d 524 ], it is held that it is for the trier of facts to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption.

1953In Attebury v. Wayland, 73 Cal.App.2d 1, 5 [ 165 P.2d 524 ], it is held that it is for the trier of facts to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to overcome the presumption.

1953(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598, 609 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].)” In Estate of Piatt, 81 Cal.App.2d 348, 352 [ 183 P.2d 919 ], where property was purchased entirely on credit with joint notes of husband and wife, where no portion of the purchase price was paid at the time of transfer and where the parties kept their earnings in separate bank accounts but otherwise used them for their common needs, the evidence was held sufficient to support an implied finding that the presumption mentioned in Civil Code, section 164, that the property conveyed in the name of a married woman is her separate property

1953(Nichols v. Mitchell, 32 Cal.2d 598, 609 [ 197 P.2d 550 ].)” In Estate of Piatt, 81 Cal.App.2d 348, 352 [ 183 P.2d 919 ], where property was purchased entirely on credit with joint notes of husband and wife, where no portion of the purchase price was paid at the time of transfer and where the parties kept their earnings in separate bank accounts but otherwise used them for their common needs, the evidence was held sufficient to support an implied finding that the presumption mentioned in Civil Code, section 164, that the property conveyed in the name of a married woman is her separate property