What is the standard of review for a nonsuit after the conclusion of the opening statement?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Chuang v. Chang, B257818 (Cal. App. 2015):
"'The standard of review for a nonsuit after [the] conclusion of the opening statement is well settled. Both the trial court in its initial decision and the appellate court on review of that decision must accept all facts asserted in the opening statement as true and must indulge every legitimate inference which may be drawn from those facts. [Citations.]" (Galanek v. Wismar (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1424.)
"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 is the standard of review for a nonsuit after conclusion of the opening statement? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a section 654 challenge, what standard of review does the court apply in reviewing the challenge? (California, United States of America)
Is erroneous admission of statements obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment reviewed for prejudice under the beyond reasonable doubt standard? (California, United States of America)
How does the abuse of review standard of review apply? (California, United States of America)
On appeal, what is the standard of review in the context of a motion for summary review of the facts of the case? (California, United States of America)
Are evidentiary rulings reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of review? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review for reviewing state law errors at the guilt phase of a trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the applicable standard of review for an application of the independent review test? (California, United States of America)
When a bench officer issued an order for a fee under review was not the same bench officer as the judge who presided over the trial, can the court exercise a less deferential standard of review? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard for reviewing a defendant's claim that their statements were elicited in violation of Miranda? (California, United States of America)
