How have courts interpreted the doctrine of "presence and presumptions" in appellate law?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Cobian, H039213 (Cal. App. 2013):

" 'The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.' " (People v. Martinez (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1517.)

Page 4

" ' "A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown. This is not only a general principle of appellate practice but an ingredient of the constitutional doctrine of reversible error." ' " (People v. Nitschmann (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 705, 708-709, italics in original.)

Other Questions

When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
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)
When a factual determination is challenged by an appellate court on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, can the appellate court substitute its deductions for those of the trial court? (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 have courts interpreted the doctrine of self-defense in cases that address other legal doctrines? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
Is an appeal moot when, through no fault of the appellant, an event occurs which makes it impossible for the reviewing court to provide any effective relief to the appellant even when ruling in the appellant's favor? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted the doctrine of presumption in support of a judgment? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.






Alexi purple


Company

  • About
  • Contact us
  • Press
  • Matters
  • Legal

    • Product

  • How it works
  • Pricing
  • Solo & small firms
  • Midsize firms
  • Large firms
  • In-house counsel

    • Resources

  • Resource hub
  • Sample memos
  • Blog
  • FAQ


    • © Copyright 2023 Alexi Inc. All rights reserved.