What are the reasons given by the trial court for a finding that a plaintiff is entitled to sue for damages?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Torres v. County of Los Angeles, 209 Cal.App.3d 325, 257 Cal.Rptr. 211 (Cal. App. 1989):
The trial court's stated reasons supporting its ruling, however, do not bind this court. We review the ruling, not its rationale. (Barnett v. Delta Lines, Inc. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 674, 682, 187 Cal.Rptr. 219.)
"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
What are the reasons given by the trial court for a finding that a plaintiff's claim is invalid? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the reasons of a trial court's finding that plaintiffs are barred from recovery from an illegal gambling contract? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to award a motion for damages even if the trial judge was aware of the fact that the motion was being brought before the court? (California, United States of America)
Is a trial court ruling that resolves conflicts in the evidence entitled to greater deference from a reviewing court than a similar finding in a similar case? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (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)
On remand, in what circumstances will the trial court order that a plaintiff be entitled to the same amount of compensation as a plaintiff in a class action? (California, United States of America)
If a trial court orders testing without articulating its reasons on the record, will the appellate court presume an implied finding of probable cause? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
What are the reasons given by the trial court for not finding a prima facie case? (California, United States of America)
