What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff has been successful in their claim that the trial court considered some facts but not other facts?

We also see no merit to appellants' argument that the trial court considered some facts but not other facts. As an appellate court, "[i]t is not our task to weigh conflicts and disputes in the evidence...." (Duffy v. Cavalier (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1517, 1539.) "It is for the trier of fact to consider internal inconsistencies in testimony, to resolve them if this is possible, and to determine what weight should be given to such testimony." (Clemmer v. Hartford Insurance Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 865, 878; see

Page 9