What are the general rules for interpreting a court's judgment?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Karraker v. Hernandez, F070220 (Cal. App. 2015):
The general rules for interpreting writings apply to the interpretation of a trial court's judgment. (Smith v. Selma Community Hosp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1501.) Generally, the questions whether a judgment is ambiguous and, if so, how to resolve that ambiguity present the appellate court with questions of law. (Id. at pp. 1501-1502.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)
Does the specific general rule need to be interpreted as a specific-general rule? (California, United States of America)
Does the "right ruling, wrong reasoning" rule apply to an evidentiary ruling that required the trial court to make findings of fact? (California, United States of America)
How has the court interpreted the rules of evidence in cases dealing with self-confessed statements made outside of court? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the evidentiary rulings of a trial court? (California, United States of America)
Is statutory language "does not more than codify a general rule of construction" applicable as well as codifying a general Rule of Construction? (California, United States of America)
Whether a court's ruling is based on oral testimony or written declarations, when conflicting inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, can the appellate court defer to the trial court's factual determinations? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal interpret the evidentiary rulings of the Superior Court of Justice? (California, United States of America)
How have the courts interpreted the language of the majority opinion in a motion that reverses the trial court's judgment that proxies cannot be used in the election of directors? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the exclusionary rule adopted by the California Supreme Court in the context of Proposition 8? (California, United States of America)
