elementary principle in California

2025Standard of Review “[I]n discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction—CALJIC No. 2.62— our high court recognized that ‘ “[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” ’ ” (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 606 , quoting People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 .) Our task, in determining whether it was error for the trial court to give CALCRIM No. 361, “is to ascertain if defendant … failed to

2022(People v. Burton (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 917, 924 .) “ ‘It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.’ ” (People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 681 (Saddler).) Our Supreme Court has instructed that CALCRIM No. 361 should be given only when a testifying defendant completely fails to explain or deny incriminating evidence or claims to lack 11 knowledge despite the evidence showing that defendant could reasonably be expected

1975But “ ‘[i]t is an elementary principle that an indispensable factor to liability founded upon negligence is the existence of a duty of care owed by the alleged wrongdoer to the person injured, or to a class of which he is a member.’ ” (Gill v. Mission Sav. & Loan Assn. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 753, 755 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 456 ], quoting from Routh v. Quinn (1942) 20 Cal.2d 488, 491 [ 127 P.2d 1 , 149 A.L.R. 215 ].) Here the only duty alleged was one, based upon standard business practice, to disburse the monies in the construction loan fund in a particular manner, i.e., direct to plaintiff.

1975But “ ‘[i]t is an elementary principle that an indispensable factor to liability founded upon negligence is the existence of a duty of care owed by the alleged wrongdoer to the person injured, or to a class of which he is a member.’ ” (Gill v. Mission Sav. & Loan Assn. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 753, 755 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 456 ], quoting from Routh v. Quinn (1942) 20 Cal.2d 488, 491 [ 127 P.2d 1 , 149 A.L.R. 215 ].) Here the only duty alleged was one, based upon standard business practice, to disburse the monies in the construction loan fund in a particular manner, i.e., direct to plaintiff.

2026(See Reserve Insurance Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 813 [“It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered”].) DISCUSSION On appeal, Durack and Fulford do not challenge the trial court’s factual findings or its retention of jurisdiction to oversee the completion of the sale.

2026The condition Co. v. Pisciotta (1982) 30 Cal.3d 800, 813 [“It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment [or order], an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.”].) 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 7 is under control.

2016Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69-70.) “ ‘ “It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute.” A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.’ ” (Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1269 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ].) *352 “When attemptin

2016Nelson & Sons, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at pp. 69-70.) “ ‘ “It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute.” A statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant, and so that one section will not destroy another unless the provision is the result of obvious mistake or error.’ ” (Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1269 [ 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 120 ].) *352 “When attemptin

2026(See Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 379, fn. 2 [“‘It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.’”]; Higginson v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 316 , 354 [same].) 10 DISPOSITION The order denying Zamora’s request for a restraining order against Ramos is affirmed.

2024(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d), (e); see Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 59 .) 7 courts generally do not take judicial notice of evidence not presented to the trial court’ absent exceptional circumstances. [Citation.] ‘It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s [order or] judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the [order or] judgment was entered. [Citation.] This rule preserves an orderly system of [litigation] by preventing litigants from circumventing the n

2023Relevant Law “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 (Hannon).) “A flight instruction is proper whenever evidence of the circumstances of [the] defendant’s departure from the crime scene or his usual environs … logically permits an inference that his movement was motivated by guilty knowledge.” (People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 694 .) “ ‘ “[F]light requires neither

2016We conclude the instruction was properly given.9 “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference. [Citation.]” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 761-762 ; see People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) “In general, a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that the defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances

1962(See Phillips v. Ogle Aluminum, Furniture, Inc., 106 Cal. App.2d 650, 653-654 [ 235 P.2d 857 ].) 1 Rather, the *70 governing law is that stated in Tucker v. Lombardo, 47 Cal.2d 457 [ 303 P.2d 1041 ], at pages 464-465, as follows: “It is an elementary principle that negligence is gauged by the ability to anticipate danger. '[R] easonable foresight of harm is essential to the concept of negligence, and supplies the criterion for determining whether it exists in a particular case, and reasonable foreseeability of harm is the fundamental basis of the law of negligence. . . .

1962(See Phillips v. Ogle Aluminum, Furniture, Inc., 106 Cal. App.2d 650, 653-654 [ 235 P.2d 857 ].) 1 Rather, the *70 governing law is that stated in Tucker v. Lombardo, 47 Cal.2d 457 [ 303 P.2d 1041 ], at pages 464-465, as follows: “It is an elementary principle that negligence is gauged by the ability to anticipate danger. '[R] easonable foresight of harm is essential to the concept of negligence, and supplies the criterion for determining whether it exists in a particular case, and reasonable foreseeability of harm is the fundamental basis of the law of negligence. . . .

1991Co. [(1963)], 211 Cal.App.2d 602, 605 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 599 ], this ‘does not vitiate the elementary principle that the judicial function is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained in the statute, not to insert what has been omitted, or omit what has been inserted.

1991Co. [(1963)], 211 Cal.App.2d 602, 605 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 599 ], this ‘does not vitiate the elementary principle that the judicial function is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained in the statute, not to insert what has been omitted, or omit what has been inserted.

2023(People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1263 .) “ ‘ “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference [citation].” ’ ” (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846 , 920–921.) “Permissive 15. inferences are therefore constitutionally suspect [violate due process] when, ‘under the facts of the case, there is no rational way the trier could make the connection permitted by the inference.’ ” (People v. Gomez (2018) 6 Cal.5th 24

2022(People v. Carter (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1166, 1198 .) “‘“It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference [citation].” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Alexander (2010) 49 Cal.4th 846, 920-921 (Alexander).) 3.

2005And it is equally well settled that the court is without power to supply an omission.” (Estate of Pardue (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 178, 180-181 [ 70 P.2d 678 ].) This rule of statutory construction is applicable unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed in the statute or elsewhere.

2005And it is equally well settled that the court is without power to supply an omission.” (Estate of Pardue (1937) 22 Cal.App.2d 178, 180-181 [ 70 P.2d 678 ].) This rule of statutory construction is applicable unless a contrary legislative intent is expressed in the statute or elsewhere.

2004“It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 885 , 564 P.2d 1203 ], citing People v. Carmen (1951) 36 Cal.2d 768, 773 [ 228 P.2d 281 ].) Here, the evidence surrounding Robinson’s refusal to testify was insufficient to allow the jury to infer that defendant intimidated Robinson.

2004“It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 [ 138 Cal.Rptr. 885 , 564 P.2d 1203 ], citing People v. Carmen (1951) 36 Cal.2d 768, 773 [ 228 P.2d 281 ].) Here, the evidence surrounding Robinson’s refusal to testify was insufficient to allow the jury to infer that defendant intimidated Robinson.

2024The motion is denied. “ ‘Reviewing courts generally do not take judicial notice of evidence not presented to the trial court’ absent exceptional circumstances. [Citation.] ‘It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered.’ ” (Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 379, fn. 2 ; see also Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 [same].) The documents of which LTC seeks judi

2014(Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3 .) “ ‘It is an elementary rule of appellate procedure that, when reviewing the correctness of a trial court’s judgment, an appellate court will consider only matters which were part of the record at the time the judgment was entered. [Citation.] This rule preserves an orderly system of [litigation] by preventing litigants from circumventing the normal sequence of litigation.’ ” (Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 379, fn. 2 .) DISPOSITION The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 3 _________________

1944(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]; Bellon v. Silver Gate Theatres, Inc., 4 Cal.2d 1 [ 47 P.2d 462 ]; Raggio v. Mallory, 10 Cal.2d 723 [ 76 P.2d 660 ]; Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ].) Keeping this elementary rule in mind, and disregarding all conflicts in the evidence, the record shows the following in support of the judgment: In February of 1935 defendant advertised for a housekeeper.

1944(Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co., 3 Cal.2d 427 [ 45 P.2d 183 ]; Bellon v. Silver Gate Theatres, Inc., 4 Cal.2d 1 [ 47 P.2d 462 ]; Raggio v. Mallory, 10 Cal.2d 723 [ 76 P.2d 660 ]; Estate of Bristol, 23 Cal.2d 221 [ 143 P.2d 689 ].) Keeping this elementary rule in mind, and disregarding all conflicts in the evidence, the record shows the following in support of the judgment: In February of 1935 defendant advertised for a housekeeper.

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2019Code, § 413 ["In determining what inferences to *606 draw from the evidence or facts in the case against a party, the trier of fact may consider, among other things, the party's failure to explain or to deny by his testimony such evidence or facts in the case against him, or his willful suppression of evidence relating thereto, if such be the case."].) However, in discussing a substantially similar pattern instruction-CALJIC No. 2.62-our high court recognized " '[i]t is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must ap

2026“CALCRIM No. 361 rests on the logical inference that if a person charged with a crime is given the opportunity to explain or deny evidence against him or her but fails to do so, then that evidence may be entitled to added weight. [Citation.] The focus of the instruction, ‘as its language indicates, is not on the defendant’s credibility as a witness, but on the role of a testifying defendant’s failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence in how jurors “evaluat[e] that evidence,” i.e., the evidence the defendant has failed to explain or deny.’ [Citations.] However, in discussing a substanti

2020“CALCRIM No. 361 rests on the logical inference that if a person charged with a crime is given the opportunity to explain or deny evidence against him or her but fails to do so, then that evidence may be entitled to added weight. [Citation.] The focus of the instruction ‘as its language indicates, is not on the defendant’s credibility as a witness, but on the role of a testifying defendant’s failure to explain or deny incriminating evidence in how jurors “evaluat[e] that evidence,” i.e., the evidence the defendant has failed to explain or deny.’ [Citations.] However . . . ‘ “[i]t is an element

2023Co. v. Hildebrand (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 859, 861 [“[i]t is . . . an elementary rule of appellate procedure that a judgment or order will not be disturbed on an appeal prosecuted by a party who consented to it”].) DISPOSITION The orders are affirmed. 6 STEWART, P.J.

2015Co. v. Hildebrand (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 859, 861 .) There may be an exception to this rule where the challenge is that the stipulated order is void.

2023Relevant Law “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 (Hannon).) “A flight instruction is proper whenever evidence of the circumstances of [the] defendant’s departure from the crime scene or his usual environs … logically permits an inference that his movement was motivated by guilty knowledge.” (People v. Turner (1990) 50 Cal.3d 668, 694 .) “ ‘ “[F]light requires neither

2016We conclude the instruction was properly given.9 “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference. [Citation.]” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 761-762 ; see People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) “In general, a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that the defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances

2016We conclude the instruction was properly given.9 “It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference. [Citation.]” (People v. Hannon (1977) 19 Cal.3d 588, 597 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 761-762 ; see People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116, 1129 .) “In general, a flight instruction ‘is proper where the evidence shows that the defendant departed the crime scene under circumstances

2013And its weight and significance, if any, are for you to decide.” Appellant contends the evidence adduced at trial did not support the inference he suppressed evidence, and therefore the court erred prejudicially in instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.06, as set forth above. “‘It is an elementary principle of law that before a jury can be instructed that it may draw a particular inference, evidence must appear in the record which, if believed by the jury, will support the suggested inference.’” (People v. Hart (1999) 20 Cal.4th 546, 620 , accord, People v. Guiton (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1116

2020(Jaffe v. Carroll (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 53, 57 .) “ ‘It is an elementary principle of modern pleading that the nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from its allegations, regardless of what it may be called . . . .’ ” (Ibid.) Malott’s pleading and the one in Plantier share the same basic underlying claim notwithstanding that one is called declaratory relief and the other mandamus.

2001The complaint thus pleads an ascertainable and identifiable proximate cause connection between ATT’s deceptive conduct and the damage. 3 We conclude the complaint states a cause of action for fraudulent concealment despite its apparent label as fraud based on affirmative misrepresentation. “ ‘It is an elementary principle of modem pleading that the nature and character of a pleading is to be determined from its allegations, regardless of what it may be called, and that the subject matter of an action and issues involved are determined from the facts alleged rather than from the title of the pl