law books test in California

2026(See Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547 , 556–557 [“an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim”].) 2.

2026(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 ; Menges v. Department of Transportation (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 13 , 27.) The appellant must supply the reviewing court with a cogent argument supported by legal authorities and citations to the relevant portions of the record.

2026(See ibid.) We do not “construct theories or arguments to undermine the [order] and defeat the presumption of correctness.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 .) “[A]n appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.

2025(Ibid.) We exercise our discretion to do so here. 4 “[t]he notice of appeal,” “[a]ny judgment appealed from and any notice of its entry,” and “[a]ny item . . . that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122(b)(1)(A) & (B), 8.124(b)(1)(B).) Further, appellant “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616 , 619–620 [appellant “ ‘must do more than assert error and l

2026(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 , 1246–1247.) “‘[I]t is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate, on the basis of the record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.

2025(Ibid.) We exercise our discretion to do so here. 4 “[t]he notice of appeal,” “[a]ny judgment appealed from and any notice of its entry,” and “[a]ny item . . . that is necessary for proper consideration of the issues.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.122(b)(1)(A) & (B), 8.124(b)(1)(B).) Further, appellant “must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 ; L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616 , 619–620 [appellant “ ‘must do more than assert error and l

2026The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.’ ” (L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616 , 619–620 (L.O.); see also Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 (Cahill) [“ ‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ arguments for them.’ ”].) “When a point is 3 While the record does not include a formal judgment of dismissal, the trial court’s order is an appealable final judgment as it sustained each defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and stated that Abioye’s complaint wa

2026(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 ; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 .) To demonstrate error, an appellant must present “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836,

2025Rather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not 19 supported by pertinent legal authority.’ ” (Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583 , 597.) Finally, as is particularly pertinent here, “ ‘ “[w]hen an appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings it is [their] duty to set forth a fair and adequate statement of the evidence which is claimed to be

2025Rather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority.’ ” (Champir, LLC v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 583 , 597.) Finally, as is particularly pertinent here, “ ‘ “[w]hen an appellant urges the insufficiency of the evidence to support the findings it is [their] duty to set forth a fair and adequate statement of the evidence which is claimed to be ins

2026(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 ; Menges v. Department of Transportation (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 13 , 27.) The appellant must supply the reviewing court with a cogent argument supported by legal authorities and citations to the relevant portions of the record.

2026All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.’” (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) “‘This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.

2026(Flores, supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 204 .) “The judgment appealed from is presumed correct. [Citation.] The appellant must challenge it by ‘rais[ing] claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and “present[ing] argument and authority on each point made.”’ [Citation.] ‘This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.’ [Citation.] ‘It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness.’” (Ibid.) The question at

2025(See Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 .) To demonstrate error, “ ‘an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his [or her] claim.’ ” (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 .) “ ‘[I]t is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the presumption of correctness.’ ” (Ibid.) 8.

2025(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; Huang v. Hanks (2018) 4 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 183, fn. 1 .) Appellants also “ ‘must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test [their] claim[s]. [They] . . . must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 .) With these rules in mind, we discuss each of defendant’s asserted errors.

2023Unless this is done the error is deemed to be waived.’ ” (Foreman & Clark Corp., supra, at p. 881 .) Finally, “it is a fundamental principle of appellate procedure that a trial court judgment is ordinarily presumed to be correct and the burden is on an appellant to demonstrate . . . that the trial court committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 .) “ ‘[A]n appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search . . . the law books to test his claim.’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.

2026(Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115 ; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545-546 .) To demonstrate error, an appellant must present “meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408 .) “When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles et al. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836,

2021(See Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 [“‘[A]n appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.’”]; Mansell v. Board of Administration (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 539, 545 [appellant waived argument the trial court erred because “she has presented no intelligible legal argument as to any other contentions”]; see also Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz, supra, 10 Cal.App.5th at p. 296 fn. 7 [“Issues not raised in the appellant’s opening brief are deemed waived or

2025(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; Huang v. Hanks (2018) 4 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 183, fn. 1 .) Appellants also “ ‘must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test [their] claim[s]. [They] . . . must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 .) With these rules in mind, we discuss each of defendant’s asserted errors.

2023Applicable Law Our review of this appeal is governed by well settled law. “[T]he trial court’s judgment is presumptively correct, such that error must be affirmatively demonstrated, and where the record is silent the reviewing court will indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. [Citations.] This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547 , 556–557.) “Of course this also means that during trial, the

2025The 3 appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 .) “Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or supported by argument or citation to authority, we consider the issues waived.” (Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99 .) “An appellate court is not required to examine undeveloped claims, nor to make arguments for parties.” (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 ; see also Garci

2020(State Farm & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 610 .) To satisfy her or his burden, “ ‘an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.’ ” (Flores v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2014) 224 5 Cal.App.4th 199, 204 ; accord, Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 106 ; Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 368 .) It is the appellant’s responsibility to support claims of error with reasoned argument and citations to authority.

2025The appellant must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record”]; Dinslage, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 379 [“An appellant who fails to pinpoint the evidence in the record indicating the existence of triable issues of fact will be deemed to have waived any claim the trial court erred in granting summary judgment”].) 16 Finally, in finding that the motion for summary judgment was well taken as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty,9 the court offered two justifications.

2020(See Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 379 .) Even on de novo review, “the appellant must frame the issues for us, show us where the superior court erred, and provide us with proper citations to the record and case law.” (Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892, 913 .) Again, “an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.

2025(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; Huang v. Hanks (2018) 4 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 183, fn. 1 .) Appellants also “ ‘must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test [their] claim[s]. [They] . . . must present an adequate argument including citations to supporting authorities and to relevant portions of the record.’ ” (Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 150, 162 .) With these rules in mind, we discuss each of defendant’s asserted errors.

2022(Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574 ; Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179 , 183 & fn. 1.) “ ‘[A]n appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his [or her] claim.

2014Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 583 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ].) The same rules apply to a party appearing in propria persona as to any other party.

2014(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 (Benach).) The appellant must challenge it by “rais[ing] claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present[ing] argument and authority on each point made.’” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 .) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 .) “It is not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment

2014(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ] (Benach).) The appellant must challenge it by “raising] claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘presenting] argument and authority on each point made.’ ” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 , 920 P.2d 716 ].) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) “I

2014(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ] (Benach).) The appellant must challenge it by “raising] claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘presenting] argument and authority on each point made.’ ” (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [ 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 771 , 920 P.2d 716 ].) “This means that an appellant must do more than assert error and leave it to the appellate court to search the record and the law books to test his claim.” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) “I

2026Resolution of that question requires statutory interpretation, to which well-established principles apply: “[T]he language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and ‘[i]f the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters).’” (People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357 (Valencia), quoting Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 .) Courts “generally mus

2026Resolution of that question requires statutory interpretation, to which well-established principles apply: “[T]he language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and ‘[i]f the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters).’” (People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357 (Valencia), quoting Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735 .) Courts “generally mus

2026(ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass, supra, 37. 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 832 [judicial estoppel is invoked “to prevent judicial fraud from a litigant’s deceitful assertion of a position completely inconsistent with one previously asserted”; “[t]he inconsistent position generally must be factual in nature”].) To the contrary, “[l]egal arguments can be considered at any stage in a case … that involves purely legal issues and undisputed facts.” (Field v. Bowen (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 346, 355, fn. 3 .) E.

2026(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) provides that each brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” “The purpose of this rule is to enable appellate justices and staff attorneys to locate relevant portions of the record expeditiously.” (Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 590 (Alki), citing City of Lincoln (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 .) “ ‘[A]n appellant must do more than assert erro