California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Costa v. Sirimanne, B237130 (Cal. App. 2013):
"Ordinarily, . . . a reviewing court is required to infer any factual findings necessary to support the judgment. [Citations.] This rule 'is a natural and logical corollary to three fundamental principles of appellate review: (1) a judgment is presumed correct; (2) all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of correctness; and (3) the appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record affirmatively proving error.' [Citation.]" (Ermoian v. Desert Hospital (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 475, 494.) "In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are bound by the substantial evidence rule. All factual matters must be viewed in favor of the prevailing party and in support of the judgment. All conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the
Page 15
judgment." (Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 58.)
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.