How has the substantial evidence test been interpreted by the courts?

"In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are bound by the substantial evidence rule." (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 58.) "Under the substantial evidence test, ' "[t]he power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any

Page 11

substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted," to support the trial court's findings. . . . "We must therefore view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving [him] the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in [his] favor. . . ." ' [Citations.] '[T]he focus is on the quality, not the quantity of the evidence. Very little solid evidence may be "substantial," while a lot of extremely weak evidence might be "insubstantial." ' [Citation.] Indeed, the testimony of a single witness may be sufficient. [Citation.]" (Hope v. California Youth Authority (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 577, 589.)