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 2008–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Benach v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2023(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 []; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394–395.) Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1271 (Laabs).) “From these principles, courts have developed the doctrine of implied findings by which the appellate court is required to infer that the trial court made all factual findin 2008(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394—395.) Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. | 2 | 2 |
Laabs v. City of Victorvillegreen2 sentences2023(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 []; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394–395.) Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1271 (Laabs).) “From these principles, courts have developed the doctrine of implied findings by which the appellate court is required to infer that the trial court made all factual findin 2023“It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1271 .) “[I]t is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling.” (Ibid.) The trial court need not specifically indicate it found no substantial justification for the motion, as such a finding is implicit in the trial court’s ruling. | 1 | 3 |
Forrest v. Department of Corporationsgreen2 sentences2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M 2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M | 1 | 2 |
Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc.green1 sentence2023(See Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 294 [“The court need not make an explicit finding the exception [for substantial justification] does not exist as this is implied in the order awarding sanctions.”].) Were we reviewing this issue de novo, we would still find appellant lacks standing and there was no substantial justification for appellant bringing a disqualification motion he lacked even a plausible argument for standing to bring. | 1 | 1 |
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. La Conchita Ranch Co.green1 sentence2023(Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 []; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394–395.) Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling.” (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1271 (Laabs).) “From these principles, courts have developed the doctrine of implied findings by which the appellate court is required to infer that the trial court made all factual findin | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co.green1 sentence2013(Ibid.; Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 508 (Brooks).) 6 “It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. [Citations.] Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. [Citations.] From these principles, courts have developed the doctrine of implied findings by which the appellate court is required to infer that the trial court made all factual findings necessa | 1 | 1 |
County of Orange v. BARRATT AMERICAN, INC.green2 sentences2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M 2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M | 1 | 1 |
Ermoian v. Desert Hospitalgreen2 sentences2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M 2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M | 1 | 1 |
Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.green2 sentences2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M 2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Arceneauxgreen2 sentences2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M 2008It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. ( Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 363 ]; see generally 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, § 349, pp. 394-395.) Moreover, it is the appellant's burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. ( Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu M | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Green v. City of Los Angeles
green
1 sentence2025(Green, supra, 40 Cal.App.3d at p. 835 .) Plaintiff’s arguments on the matter of error are that the trial court heard live testimony only from the 4 It also appears these declarations were previously included in the appellant’s appendix before plaintiff elected to proceed with a clerk’s transcript. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Denham v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) The burden is on the appellant to provid[e] a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Shalant v. Girardi
green
1 sentence2024(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 , disapproved on another ground in Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1164, 1172 .) A reviewing court may not consider any statements of fact not supported by the record or any claims of error based on unsupported statements. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rudnick v. Rudnick
green
1 sentence2023(Rudnick, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 1335 ; see also Laabs, supra, 163 3 In his opposition to respondent’s motion for appellate sanctions, appellant contends that the standard of review is better described as the “presumption of correctness” than as the “ ‘doctrine of implied findings,’ ” a term sometimes reserved for circumstances in which the parties may request a statement of decision under Code of Civil Procedure section 632, which applies to trials rather than motions. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rancho Santa Fe Ass'n v. Dolan-King
green
1 sentence2013(Ibid.; Brooks v. American Broadcasting Co. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 500, 508 (Brooks).) 6 “It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we presume that a judgment or order is correct. [Citations.] Moreover, it is the appellant’s burden of providing a record that establishes error, and where the record is silent, we must indulge all intendments and presumptions to support the challenged ruling. [Citations.] From these principles, courts have developed the doctrine of implied findings by which the appellate court is required to infer that the trial court made all factual findings necessa | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.