judgment may not urge error in California

2021(California State Employees’ Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 372, 382, fn. 7 [as a general matter, “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal]; Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 [as a general rule, respondents who fail to file a cross-appeal cannot claim error in connection with the opposing party’s appeal]; Drell v. Cohen (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 24, 31 .) Accordingly, we decline to reach the separate issues raised by the Briggs Parties.9 In any event, since we have affirmed the underlying judgment, the issues raised by t

2015(California State Employees’ Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 372, 382, fn. 7 [“[I]t is the general rule that a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.”]; see also Townsend v. Townsend (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 389, 398 [respondent who did not file an appeal from the trial court’s order forfeited his right to seek reversal of a portion of the order]; Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 [respondent who has not filed an appeal “cannot seek . . . affirmative relief” and may not raise claim of error other than to seek affirmance

2024“As a general matter, ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ [Citation.]” (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 .) In this case, the Wus’ motion to set aside the section 998 offer was brought specifically on the ground that they were entitled to relief under section 473, subdivision (b) because their counsel’s failure to specify that the $350,000 payment to Chiu would constitute a return of her capital contribution “was made in error by counsel, without authority from [the Wus.]” As discussed above, the trial court set aside the section

2023“As a general matter, ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 .) “ ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.’ ” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 .) DISPOSITION The family court’s October 2019 order and August 2021 order are reversed.

2022However, “ ‘ “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” [Citation.] “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appellants.” ’ ” (Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 ; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1090, fn. 4 [“ ‘ “ ‘[A] respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” ’ ”].) Because they have not cross-appealed from the judgment, we need not consider the Karapetian defendants’ claims of err

2022(E.g., Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 [“ ‘As a general matter, “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” [Citation.] “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants” ’ ”]; Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2021) 2 LAUSD contends that plaintiff’s appellate brief is so deficient that we should disregard it.

1993(Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ].) A limited exception to this rule is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 906, which states in pertinent part: “The respondent . . . may, without appealing from [the] judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review any of the foregoing [described orders or rulings] for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modification of the judgment from which the appeal is taken.” “The purpose of the stat

1993(Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ].) A limited exception to this rule is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 906, which states in pertinent part: “The respondent . . . may, without appealing from [the] judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review any of the foregoing [described orders or rulings] for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modification of the judgment from which the appeal is taken.” “The purpose of the stat

2024“As a general matter, ‘ “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.’ ” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 , see also 4 The entirety of Appellants argument consists of the following three sentences, with no citation of legal authority: The trial court, after having slashed attorney fees from $202,000 to $31,083, further rules that this sum should be offset against the money owed by Gra

2024“As a general matter, ‘ “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.’ [Citation.]” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 .) We do not consider any of Kilpatrick’s claims that the trial court erred for reasons unrelated to those raised in the City’s appeal, including regarding the calculation of the backpay period.

2016Hugo, however, did not cross-appeal from the trial court’s order, and therefore forfeited this issue. ‘“As a general matter, ‘ “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.’ ” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 [ 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 600 ]; see Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 252 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 ] [respondent who did not cross-appeal from order vacating dismissal prevented fro

2016Hugo, however, did not cross-appeal from the trial court’s order, and therefore forfeited this issue. ‘“As a general matter, ‘ “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.’ ” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 [ 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 600 ]; see Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 252 [ 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 183 ] [respondent who did not cross-appeal from order vacating dismissal prevented fro

2015(California State Employees’ Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 372, 382, fn. 7 [“[I]t is the general rule that a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.”]; see also Townsend v. Townsend (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 389, 398 [respondent who did not file an appeal from the trial court’s order forfeited his right to seek reversal of a portion of the order]; Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 [respondent who has not filed an appeal “cannot seek . . . affirmative relief” and may not raise claim of error other than to seek affirmance

2010The County’s Claims “As a general matter, ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 501 ]; accord, Townsend v. Townsend (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 389, 398 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 760 ].) “A limited exception to this rule is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 906, which provides in pertinent part: ‘The respondent . . . may, without appealing from the judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review any of the foregoing [described orders or rulings] for the purpose of determi

1987(See, e.g., Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ]; Henigson v. Bank of America (1948) 32 Cal.2d 240, 244 [ 195 P.2d 777 ]; Ray v. Parker (1940) 15 Cal.2d 275, 282 [ 101 P.2d 665 ]; California C.

1987(See, e.g., Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ]; Henigson v. Bank of America (1948) 32 Cal.2d 240, 244 [ 195 P.2d 777 ]; Ray v. Parker (1940) 15 Cal.2d 275, 282 [ 101 P.2d 665 ]; California C.

1987(See, e.g., Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ]; Henigson v. Bank of America (1948) 32 Cal.2d 240, 244 [ 195 P.2d 777 ]; Ray v. Parker (1940) 15 Cal.2d 275, 282 [ 101 P.2d 665 ]; California C.

1987(See, e.g., Puritan Leasing Co. v. August (1976) 16 Cal.3d 451, 463 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 175 , 546 P.2d 679 ]; Henigson v. Bank of America (1948) 32 Cal.2d 240, 244 [ 195 P.2d 777 ]; Ray v. Parker (1940) 15 Cal.2d 275, 282 [ 101 P.2d 665 ]; California C.

2024Ordinarily, “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” (Hutchinson v. City of Sacramento (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 791, 798 .) “ ‘ “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appellants.” ’ ” (Gutierrez v. Chopard USA Ltd. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 383 , 394.) However, a “limited exception to this rule is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 906, which states in pertinent part: ‘The respondent . . . may, without appealing from [the] judgment, request the reviewing court to and it m

2019Henselmeier is Blakely's mother, McHugh's successor-in interest, and a contingent beneficiary under the policy. 3 respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal. [Citation.] A limited exception to this rule is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 906, which states in pertinent part: 'The respondent . . . may, without appealing from [the] judgment, request the reviewing court to and it may review any of the foregoing [described orders or rulings] for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he

2024Relying on Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th 299 , he now argues Miller falsely accused him of a crime, which constitutes defamation per se and illegal conduct.

2024Relying on Flatley, supra, 39 Cal.4th 299 , he now argues Miller falsely accused him of a crime, which constitutes defamation per se and illegal conduct.

2018“As a general matter, ‘ “a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.” ’ [Citation.] ‘To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appellants.’ ” (Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 585 [Project opponents, who did not cross-appeal, waived contentions that trial court erred in not setting aside a mitigated negative declaration on additional grounds.].) Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1181 (Anderson) is instructive.

2016As a general matter, “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 [ 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 501 ].) “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross-appellants.” (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2015) ¶ 8:195, p. 8-155.) Anderson, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th 1173 is a CEQA case and is instructive in applying this general rule.

2015(Compare Delois v. Barrett Block Partners (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 940, 943 [plaintiff cross-appealed from portion of order striking causes of action on grounds none of them 10 satisfied the first prong of section 425.16]; Clark v. Mazgani (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1285 .) Corbin's argument that appellants did not meet their threshold anti-SLAPP burden, if successful, would result in our affirming the order denying the motion. " 'It is a general rule a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal. [Citation.] A limited exception to this rule is provided by .

2013(Adoption of H.R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 455, 466 [“‘It is a general rule a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal’”].) Even if Hinderliter preserved this issue for appeal, the court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.

2024(Building Industry Assn. v. City of Oceanside (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 744, 758, fn. 9 .) Kilpatrick does not, and cannot, contend that review of the trial court’s calculation of the backpay issue is necessary to determine whether any error by the trial court was prejudicial to the City.

2022However, “ ‘ “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” [Citation.] “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appellants.” ’ ” (Celia S. v. Hugo H. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 655, 665 ; Valentine v. Plum Healthcare Group, LLC (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1076, 1090, fn. 4 [“ ‘ “ ‘[A] respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” ’ ”].) Because they have not cross-appealed from the judgment, we need not consider the Karapetian defendants’ claims of err

2021The NCRA petitioners further argue that the addenda to the program EIR fail to (1) provide additional mitigation measures to address increased risks to vernal pool andrenid bees, western yellow-billed cuckoos, purple martin, aquatic invertebrates and water quality, and (2) address increased impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and noise. “ ‘As a general matter, “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” [Citation.] “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appell

2021Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 [issues raised for the first time on appeal which were not litigated in the trial court are waived].) Moreover, the argument is improper because, “[a]s a general matter, ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” (Estate of Powell (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1439 .) A limited exception to this rule applies where the respondent urges error in a trial court ruling “for the purpose of determining whether or not the appellant was prejudiced by the error or errors upon which he relies for reversal or modifica

2021The NCRA petitioners further argue that the addenda to the program EIR fail to (1) provide additional mitigation measures to address increased risks to vernal pool andrenid bees, western yellow-billed cuckoos, purple martin, aquatic invertebrates and water quality, and (2) address increased impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and noise. “ ‘As a general matter, “ ‘a respondent who has not appealed from the judgment may not urge error on appeal.’ ” [Citation.] “To obtain affirmative relief by way of appeal, respondents must themselves file a notice of appeal and become cross- appell

2015(Cf. Forrest, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213 [substantial evidence standard applies in reviewing trial court's factual findings].) In any event, were we to address that issue, it is likely we would conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding there would be a grave risk of emotional harm to the children were they returned to Mexico immediately in Father's custody. 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 633; Forrest, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210 .) A trial court has no authority under the Hague Convention or ICARA to order a parent to return to the children's c

2015(Cf. Forrest, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1213 [substantial evidence standard applies in reviewing trial court's factual findings].) In any event, were we to address that issue, it is likely we would conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding there would be a grave risk of emotional harm to the children were they returned to Mexico immediately in Father's custody. 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 633; Forrest, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210 .) A trial court has no authority under the Hague Convention or ICARA to order a parent to return to the children's c