burden of rebutting presumption in California

2021(People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 755 ; People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 76 .) In determining whether the presumption of constitutionality is overcome, the trial court applies the well-established three-step inquiry set forth in Batson.

2021(People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 755 .) In determining whether the presumption of constitutionality is overcome, we apply the well-established three-step inquiry set forth in Batson.

2026We find no error in the trial court’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement. “‘“[I]t is the appellant’s responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error[,]”’” and “‘“review is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and briefed.”’ [Citation.]” (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 480 , 492.) APA bears this burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court's decision, even where our review is de novo.

2023Co. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1121 , 1129.) “ ‘A judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’ [Citation.]” (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981 .) Thus, “ ‘ “it is the appellant’s responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error” ’ ” by “ ‘ “supply[ing] the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.” ’ 11 [Citation.]” (See Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Torres Construction Corp. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 480 , 492, 497; Her

2022(In re Large (2007) 41 Cal.4th 538 , 550–551.) “While a court must explain its reasons for striking a prior (§ 1385, subd. (a); see Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497, 531 ), no similar requirement applies when a court declines to strike a prior (People v. Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th 367, 376 ).” (In re Large, at p. 550; see Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 161 [if a court “is striking or vacating an allegation or finding, it must set forth its reasons in an order entered on the minutes,” italics added]).) We also indulge a “ ‘strong presumption’ [citation] that the trial judge properly exercised h

2021(People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375 .) There is a “‘strong presumption’ [citation] that the trial judge properly exercised his [or her] discretion in refusing to strike a prior conviction allegation” (In re Large (2007) 41 Cal.4th 538, 551 ), and the appellant has the burden of rebutting that presumption and demonstrating an abuse of discretion (ibid.; People v. Carmony, supra, at pp. 377–378).

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 755 ; People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 76 .) In determining whether the presumption of constitutionality is overcome, the trial court applies the well-established three-step inquiry set forth in Batson.

2021(People v. Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 755 ; People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 76 .) In determining whether the presumption of constitutionality is overcome, the trial court applies the well-established three-step inquiry set forth in Batson.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2026Under that statutory interpretation, defendants have the burden of rebutting the presumption that use restrictions are reasonable and, to carry that burden, they must show the prohibition of abortion clinics is “wholly arbitrary, violate[s] a fundamental public policy, or impose[s] a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit.” (Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 382 ; 8 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, §§ 28:108, 28:221, pp. 988, 1193 [enforcement of restriction in CC&Rs].) II.

2026Under that statutory interpretation, defendants have the burden of rebutting the presumption that use restrictions are reasonable and, to carry that burden, they must show the prohibition of abortion clinics is “wholly arbitrary, violate[s] a fundamental public policy, or impose[s] a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit.” (Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 382 ; 8 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, §§ 28:108, 28:221, pp. 988, 1193 [enforcement of restriction in CC&Rs].) II.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2021(Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89 ; People v. O’Malley (2016) 62 Cal.4th 944, 974 ; People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157 ; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 276-277.) It is presumed that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner, and the appellant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.

2020Co., supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 906 .) Determining what constitutes a sufficient excuse in a particular case “rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (Id. at pp. 906–907.) “[A] defendant’s failure to appear without explanation is presumptively without sufficient excuse and the burden of rebutting such presumption rests with the defendant’s representatives or those who are interested in avoiding a forfeiture.” (Id. at p. 907.) 8 Furthermore, “[a] nonappearance once excused does not constitute an excuse for subsequent nonappearances.” (Ibid.) C.

2013What constitutes a sufficient excuse generally rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, but it must be manifest that a defendant’s failure to appear without explanation is presumptively without sufficient excuse and the burden of rebutting such presumption rests with the defendant’s representatives or those who are interested in avoiding a forfeiture.” (United Bonding, supra, 5 Cal.3d at pp. 906-907.) A trial court’s ruling on a motion to set aside bail forfeiture “will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of that discretion appears in the record.” (People v. Ranger Ins

2019(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1483(a).)[5] If a minor is declared not to be a fit and proper subject for treatment under the juvenile court law in accordance with the foregoing statutes, the district attorney may file an accusatory pleading against the minor in a court of criminal jurisdiction, and the case then proceeds according to the laws applicable to a criminal proceeding. (§ 707.1, subd (a).)” ( Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 548–549.) Proposition 57, which took effect on November 9, 2016, significantly amended sections 602 and 707.

2002(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1483(a).) If a minor is declared not to be a fit and proper subject for treatment under the juvenile court law in accordance with the foregoing statutes, the district attorney may file an accusatory pleading against the minor in a court of criminal jurisdiction, and the case then proceeds according to the laws applicable to a criminal proceeding. (§ 707.1, subd. (a).)” ( Manduley, supra, 27 Cal.4th 537, 548-549 , fn. omitted.) 4 For specified crimes committed by minors 14 years of age or older, including those alleged here, the juvenile court law also affords the pro

2006As the court observed, “where Judy transferred her interest in real property to Clarence for his cosignature on an automobile loan—clearly inadequate consideration for execution of the quitclaim deed—Clarence properly should have borne the burden of rebutting the presumption of undue influence . . . .” (Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 296 .) In Lange, the trial court found a husband’s $250,000 promissory note and deed of trust in favor of his wife, which the husband executed at the wife’s behest for her separate property contributions to the acquisition and improvement of their jointly own

2005(Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 297 .) The burden of rebutting the presumption of undue influence is on the spouse who acquired an advantage or benefit from the transaction.

2006Appellant Failed to Prove That the Transfers Were Not the Result of Undue Influence Section 21350 does not apply if "[t]he court determines, upon clear and convincing evidence, but not based solely upon the testimony of any person described in subdivision (a) of Section 21350, that the transfer was not the product of fraud, menace, duress, or undue influence." (§ 21351, subd. (d).) Thus, the burden is on the presumptively disqualified transferee to rebut the presumption. ( Bernard supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 800 , 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 248 , 139 P.3d 1196 .) The trier of fact determines whether the burde

2006(Bernard, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 800 .) The trier of fact determines whether the burden of rebutting a presumption has been satisfied.

2026(In re Marriage of Weaver (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 478 , 486-487.) “The presumption can be overcome only by evidence of an agreement or understanding between the parties that the title reflected in the deed is not what the parties intended.” (In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 189 .) Such an agreement may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.

2026(In re Marriage of Weaver (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 478 , 486-487.) “The presumption can be overcome only by evidence of an agreement or understanding between the parties that the title reflected in the deed is not what the parties intended.” (In re Marriage of Brooks & Robinson (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 176, 189 .) Such an agreement may be inferred from the conduct of the parties.

2025(Eagle Fire & Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Dinuba (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 448 , 470; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Without a transcript of the January 29, 2025 hearing, however, Sevilla cannot carry that burden because there is no way to examine what evidence was adduced, which arguments were made, or how the trial court weighed competing considerations.

2025Co. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061 .) “[A] defendant’s failure to appear without explanation is presumptively without sufficient excuse and the burden of rebutting such presumption rests with the defendant’s representatives or those who are interested in avoiding 4 The DA notice was not a court order and could not lawfully require the defendant to appear before the court.

2025(Eagle Fire & Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Dinuba (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 448 , 470; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Without a transcript of the January 29, 2025 hearing, however, Sevilla cannot carry that burden because there is no way to examine what evidence was adduced, which arguments were made, or how the trial court weighed competing considerations.

2024(Lee v. Kim (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705 , 721.) Plaintiff bears this burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness accorded to the trial court’s decision, regardless of the applicable standard of review.

2024(See, e.g., In re Winder’s Estate (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 78, 90 ; see also Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609 [noting that trial court rulings are presumed correct on appeal and that the appellant bears the burden of rebutting the presumption].) We conclude that the probate court made the findings required by the Probate Code and that these findings were supported by substantial evidence. 1.