What is the appellant's burden to presume that the record contains every finding of fact?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bond v. Htrans Inc., D064668 (Cal. App. 2015):
We " ' " 'must presume that the record contains evidence to support every finding of fact[,]' " ' " and " '[i]t is the appellant's burden . . . to identify and establish deficiencies in the in the evidence.' " (Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1326 (Holguin).)
"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
After reviewing the record of a motion brought by appellant in the Superior Court of Appeal against the appellant, what is the appellant's request for an independent review of the record? (California, United States of America)
What is the burden of presenting an appellate brief that contains citation to the record? (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 appellant's burden to present every part of the record necessary to review claims asserted on appeal? (California, United States of America)
How have appellate courts dealt with challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of a finding of fact? (California, United States of America)
What is the appellant's burden to provide an adequate record for appellate review of his claim? (California, United States of America)
What is the appellant's burden to establish error based on the appellate record? (California, United States of America)
What is the record of the appellant's appeal against a finding that counsel provided ineffective assistance and ineffective assistance to counsel? (California, United States of America)
When a conviction for sexual assault is based primarily on circumstantial evidence, does the court have to presume every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence? (California, United States of America)
Does the appellant have the burden of demonstrating prejudicial error in its factual findings? (California, United States of America)
