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.
9 California opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selmagreen2 sentences2022(Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 786 ; see Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 [trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless the testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable].) Second, if a trial court finds that all or part of a witness’s testimony is not credible, the appellate court applies the following standard: “A trier of fact is free to disbelieve a witness, even one uncontradicted, if there is any rational ground for doing so.” (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Rationa 2021(Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 786 ; see Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 [trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless the testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable].) Second, when a trial court finds all or part of a witness’s testimony is not credible, appellate courts apply the following rule: “A trier of fact is free to disbelieve a witness, even one uncontradicted, if there is any rational ground for doing so. [Citations.]” (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Ration | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Remberto C.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Rational grounds for disbelieving a witness include the factors listed in Evidence Code section 780, such as the witness’s interest in the matter. 2023(In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Rational grounds for disbelieving a witness include the factors listed in Evidence Code section 780, such as the witness’s interest in the matter. | 7 | 2016–2023 |
Nevarez v. Tonna
green
2 sentences2022(Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 786 ; see Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 [trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless the testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable].) Second, if a trial court finds that all or part of a witness’s testimony is not credible, the appellate court applies the following standard: “A trier of fact is free to disbelieve a witness, even one uncontradicted, if there is any rational ground for doing so.” (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Rationa 2021(Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 786 ; see Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 [trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless the testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable].) Second, when a trial court finds all or part of a witness’s testimony is not credible, appellate courts apply the following rule: “A trier of fact is free to disbelieve a witness, even one uncontradicted, if there is any rational ground for doing so. [Citations.]” (In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 .) Ration | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence2026Daniel argues even if the court found testimony lacking in credibility, “[t]hose findings do not create evidence of the opposite of the testimony given under oath.” We agree “[t]he rejection of a witness’s testimony by the trier of fact has only the effect of removing that testimony from the evidentiary mix.” (Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1205 .) However, this does not help Daniel, who argues this results in a lack of evidence that “the contract was a fraud perpetrated by [Daniel].” Daniel further asserts there is no evidence that “pay | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ortzman v. Van Der Waal
green
1 sentence2025(Ortzman v. Van Der Waal (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 167, 171 .) Rational grounds for disbelieving a witness include the factors listed in Evidence Code section 780, such as the witness’s interest in the matter. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.