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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2025 2 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 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 | 2 | 2 |
Laabs v. City of Victorvillegreen2 sentences2025(See Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242 , 1271–1272 [“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 necessary to support the order or judgment”].) And although the trial court did not identify the specific evidence that supports the court’s finding, we conclude substantial evidence supports it. 2023(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 | 4 |
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 |
Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors Inc.green2 sentences2008(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 58 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ].) 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 necessary to support the order or judgment. 2008(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 58 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ].) 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 necessary to support the order or judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Forrest v. Department of Corporationsgreen2 sentences2008(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 58 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ].) 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 necessary to support the order or judgment. 2008(Forrest v. Department of Corporations (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 194 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 466 ]; Fladeboe v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 58 [ 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 225 ].) 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 necessary to support the order or judgment. | 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 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
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 |