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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reyes v. Koshagreen2 sentences2024(Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 708; see also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467 , 554- 555 [de novo review is limited to issues adequately raised and supported in an appellant’s opening brief, and “ ‘ “[t]he most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed 22 judgment or order is presumed to be correct.” [Citation.] It is the appellant who bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.’ [Citation.]”].) Thus, “[a]lthough our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have 2021(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 .) This is true even on de novo review (Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 ), and even if there is no respondents’ brief (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 , 226-227). | 3 | 3 |
Jameson v. Destagreen2 sentences2025This is true even on de novo review”]; accord Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594 , 608– 609.) Carraman’s only arguments on appeal regarding his status as an independent contractor concerned the application of the statutory licensure exemption under section 7048. 2022On appeal, “the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the appellants to demonstrate reversible error.” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 708 citing Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 .) No reversible error has been demonstrated as the record supports the trial court’s judgment. h. | 2 | 5 |
Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diegogreen2 sentences2024(Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 708; see also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467 , 554- 555 [de novo review is limited to issues adequately raised and supported in an appellant’s opening brief, and “ ‘ “[t]he most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed 22 judgment or order is presumed to be correct.” [Citation.] It is the appellant who bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.’ [Citation.]”].) Thus, “[a]lthough our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have 2023When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 456, fn. 9 .) “[W]e disregard . . . allegations contrary to those judicially noticed facts.” (May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1329 .) “On appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review . . . .” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 7 | 2 | 2 |
Avidity Partners v. State of Californiagreen1 sentence2024(Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003 ; see also Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 859 (Serri).) “We are not bound by the trial court’s reasons for granting summary judgment because we review the trial court’s ruling, and not its rationale.” (Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1192 .) However, “[o]n appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review” of orders granting summary | 1 | 1 |
Serri v. Santa Clara Universitygreen1 sentence2024(Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003 ; see also Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 859 (Serri).) “We are not bound by the trial court’s reasons for granting summary judgment because we review the trial court’s ruling, and not its rationale.” (Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1192 .) However, “[o]n appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review” of orders granting summary | 1 | 1 |
StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2023When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 456, fn. 9 .) “[W]e disregard . . . allegations contrary to those judicially noticed facts.” (May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1329 .) “On appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review . . . .” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 7 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davies v. Sallie Mae, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024(Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 708; see also Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467 , 554- 555 [de novo review is limited to issues adequately raised and supported in an appellant’s opening brief, and “ ‘ “[t]he most fundamental rule of appellate review is that an appealed 22 judgment or order is presumed to be correct.” [Citation.] It is the appellant who bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.’ [Citation.]”].) Thus, “[a]lthough our review of a summary judgment is de novo, it is limited to issues which have 2023(Davies v. Sallie Mae, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1086, 1096 .) III Res Judicata In his appeal, Lemke makes three efforts to persuade this court that res judicata should not apply to bar this action. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 .) This is true even on de novo review (Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 ), and even if there is no respondents’ brief (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 , 226-227). 2021(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609 .) This is true even on de novo review (Reyes v. Kosha (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 451, 466, fn. 6 ), and even if there is no respondents’ brief (Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc. (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 224 , 226-227). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026(Romo v. Y-3 Holdings, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1153, 1158 ; Franco v. Greystone Ridge Condominium (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 221 , 227.) However, “on appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review.” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 708.) 16 We cannot conclude the trial court’s interpretation of the guaranty was erroneous. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kahn v. East Side Union High School District
green
1 sentence2024(Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 990, 1003 ; see also Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 859 (Serri).) “We are not bound by the trial court’s reasons for granting summary judgment because we review the trial court’s ruling, and not its rationale.” (Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1192 .) However, “[o]n appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review” of orders granting summary | 1 | 2024–2024 |
May v. City of Milpitas
green
1 sentence2023When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 456, fn. 9 .) “[W]e disregard . . . allegations contrary to those judicially noticed facts.” (May v. City of Milpitas (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1329 .) “On appeal, the trial court’s judgment is presumed correct, and the burden is on the Appellants to demonstrate reversible error. [Citation.] This is true even on de novo review . . . .” (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657 , 7 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.