When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, can the reviewing court substitute its decision for that of the trial court?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Acevedo v. Akhtar, E064057 (Cal. App. 2017):
exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.'" (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1283.)
"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
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)
In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress, does the court have any authority to review the fact finding of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for substituting a decision by a reviewing court for that of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for substituting a decision by a review court for that of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
What is the standard of review applied by appellate courts to a decision by a trial court to instruct or not to instruct a jury? (California, United States of America)
How does the Court of Appeal review a trial court's decision on a disqualification motion? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (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)
When reviewing a trial court's decision on the Miranda issue, does the court have to agree that a statement was obtained in violation of the Miranda Act? (California, United States of America)
When a finding of fact is challenged on the grounds that there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, does the appellate court have any power to substitute its conclusions for those of the trial court? (California, United States of America)
