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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1920–2014 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Koua Xionggreen1 sentence2014Manuel’s request for reimbursement or surcharge is denied.” Manuel recognizes here that “a trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless that testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable.” (Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 ; see People v. Xiong (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268 [we can only reject the trial court’s findings as to witness credibility “when the evidence is inherently improbable and impossible of belief”]; In re Marriage of Knickerbocker (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1042 [“[o]nly where the eviden | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Knickerbockergreen1 sentence2014Manuel’s request for reimbursement or surcharge is denied.” Manuel recognizes here that “a trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless that testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable.” (Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 ; see People v. Xiong (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268 [we can only reject the trial court’s findings as to witness credibility “when the evidence is inherently improbable and impossible of belief”]; In re Marriage of Knickerbocker (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1042 [“[o]nly where the eviden | 1 | 1 |
In Re Rebecca R.red2 sentences2006(Evid.Code § 664; see also In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420 , 1425, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 .) "There are no inconsistencies in the evidence to rebut the presumption that [the Agency] properly carried out its duties." ( In re Rebecca R, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) Moreover, assuming arguendo that there was error, any error was harmless. 2006(Evid.Code § 664; see also In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420 , 1425, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 .) "There are no inconsistencies in the evidence to rebut the presumption that [the Agency] properly carried out its duties." ( In re Rebecca R, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) Moreover, assuming arguendo that there was error, any error was harmless. | 1 | 1 |
In Re LBred2 sentences2006(Evid.Code § 664; see also In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420 , 1425, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 .) "There are no inconsistencies in the evidence to rebut the presumption that [the Agency] properly carried out its duties." ( In re Rebecca R, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) Moreover, assuming arguendo that there was error, any error was harmless. 2006(Evid.Code § 664; see also In re L.B. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1420 , 1425, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 16 .) "There are no inconsistencies in the evidence to rebut the presumption that [the Agency] properly carried out its duties." ( In re Rebecca R, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) Moreover, assuming arguendo that there was error, any error was harmless. | 1 | 1 |
Wall v. Wallgreen2 sentences1974(In re Marriage of Wall (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 1042, 1048 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 690 ].) Where property is acquired after marriage, the burden rests upon the party asserting its separateness to establish that fact. 1974(In re Marriage of Wall (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 1042, 1048 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 690 ].) Where property is acquired after marriage, the burden rests upon the party asserting its separateness to establish that fact. | 1 | 1 |
MacAulay v. Boothgreen2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Canadian Indus. Alcohol Co.green2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Huttongreen2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1 |
Viner v. Untrechtgreen2 sentences1948(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261, 267 [158 P.2d 3]; Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808, 815 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) The attack on the findings that the three transactions were not induced by fraud or undue influence, or any breach of the confidential relation existing, necessitates a somewhat more detailed recital of the evidence with regard to each. 1948(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261, 267 [158 P.2d 3]; Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808, 815 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) The attack on the findings that the three transactions were not induced by fraud or undue influence, or any breach of the confidential relation existing, necessitates a somewhat more detailed recital of the evidence with regard to each. | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1 |
Stromerson v. Averillgreen2 sentences1948(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261, 267 [158 P.2d 3]; Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808, 815 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) The attack on the findings that the three transactions were not induced by fraud or undue influence, or any breach of the confidential relation existing, necessitates a somewhat more detailed recital of the evidence with regard to each. 1948(Viner v. Untrecht, 26 Cal.2d 261, 267 [158 P.2d 3]; Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808, 815 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) The attack on the findings that the three transactions were not induced by fraud or undue influence, or any breach of the confidential relation existing, necessitates a somewhat more detailed recital of the evidence with regard to each. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Consolidated Irrigation District v. City of Selma
green
1 sentence2014Manuel’s request for reimbursement or surcharge is denied.” Manuel recognizes here that “a trial court’s credibility findings cannot be reversed on appeal unless that testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable.” (Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 201 ; see People v. Xiong (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268 [we can only reject the trial court’s findings as to witness credibility “when the evidence is inherently improbable and impossible of belief”]; In re Marriage of Knickerbocker (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1042 [“[o]nly where the eviden | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re JN
green
1 sentence2006Code, § 664 [presumption of duty regularly performed].) There are no inconsistencies in the evidence to rebut the presumption that DCS properly carried out its duties in contrast to In re J.N., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th 450 , where an affirmative showing that inquiry was made as to one parent supported an inference that it had not been made as to the other. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Burnham v. Witt
green
2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Combs v. Combs
green
2 sentences1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi 1948Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Burnham v. Witt, 217 Cal. 397 [ 18 P.2d 949 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Stevens v. Hutton, 71 Cal.App.2d 676, 683 [ 163 P.2d 479 ]; Macaulay v. Booth, 53 Cal.App.2d 757, 760 [ 128 P.2d 386 ]; In re Hill, 13 Cal.App.2d 326, 329 [ 57 P.2d 155 ].) If, as appellant argues, the evidence to rebut the presumption of unfairness in an agent’s transactions with his principal must be clear and convincing, it has been decided that the clear and convincing evidence rule is one for the guidance of the trial court and all that is requi | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Morrow v. Graves
green
2 sentences1920(Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 , [ 51 Pac. 15 ]; Morrow v. Graves, 77 Cal. 218 , [ 19 Pac. 489 ].) There is nothing in the evidence to rebut this presumption. 1920(Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 , [ 51 Pac. 15 ]; Morrow v. Graves, 77 Cal. 218 , [ 19 Pac. 489 ].) There is nothing in the evidence to rebut this presumption. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Williams v. Borgwardt
neutral
2 sentences1920(Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 , [ 51 Pac. 15 ]; Morrow v. Graves, 77 Cal. 218 , [ 19 Pac. 489 ].) There is nothing in the evidence to rebut this presumption. 1920(Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 , [ 51 Pac. 15 ]; Morrow v. Graves, 77 Cal. 218 , [ 19 Pac. 489 ].) There is nothing in the evidence to rebut this presumption. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.