California
Appeals

Sufficiency of The Evidence

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL[9] and STANDARD OF REVIEW

We elect to restate appellant’s statement of contentions as presenting the following issues: 1) the general verdict and special findings are inconsistent and irreconcilable and the special findings control; 2) the CC&R’s alone determine the rights and obligations between the parties; 3) the trial court erred in the application of the rules set forth in Lamden v. LaJolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowner’s Assn. (1992) 21 Cal.4th 249; the trial court erred in instructions submitted to jury; 5) the trial court erred in ordering the injunction; and 6) the trial court erred in determining the Ritters were the prevailing parties.[10]

In reviewing the evidence on appeal, all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the judgment, and all legitimate and reasonable inferences indulged in to uphold the judgment if possible.  When a judgment is attacked as being unsupported, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the judgment.  When two or more inferences can be reasonably deduced from the facts, the reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.  (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 571; Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. (1935) 3 Cal.2d 427, 429.)

To the extent that the contentions on appeal raise the need to review the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict and the associated judgment, the court of appeal is ordinarily limited to review of whether the judgment is supported by substantial evidence.  (Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 624, 632.)  “When considering a claim of insufficient evidence on appeal, we do not reweigh the evidence, but rather determine whether, after resolving all conflicts favorably to the prevailing party, and according the prevailing party the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there is substantial evidence to support the judgment.”  (Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454, 465, disapproved on another ground in Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 352, fn. 17.)  We review all legal issues de novo.  The existence of duty is a question of law to be decided by the court.  (Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181, 1188.)

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents