California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Sufficiency of The Evidence
 

Standard of Review-Sufficiency of The Evidence, function of Court-review the record for substantial evidence to support the court’s findings

But for the fact that appellants filed a reply brief asserting a position unlike the one taken in their opening brief, this opinion would likely have ended after the preceding paragraph.  Indeed, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion.  In any event, we turn now to appellants’ various claims.

First, appellants challenge the court’s statement of decision insofar as they assert “Naulls applied for a business licenses from the city and ‘did not indicate’ that it was for a medical marijuana collective; instead he described it as ‘miscellaneous retail.’”  Appellants concede the accuracy of that statement, but argue the statement of decision contains no factual finding that Naulls falsified the business license application or that the business licensing sections of the City’s municipal code had been violated.  Appellants are correct that the statement of decision makes no reference to falsification of the application.  However, they overlook the fact that our function is to review the record for substantial evidence to support the court’s findings, whether express or implied.  Thus, it matters not whether the statement of decision contains an express finding to support the court’s decision; it is enough that the record reflects substantial evidence to support an implied finding.  Furthermore, we reject appellants’ position that the court’s so-called “musings” throughout the hearing, upon which the City relies in its respondent’s brief, do not constitute findings and, in any event, are not supported by substantial evidence.  For example, they point to the court’s statement that Naulls “was not particularly forthcoming on the application,” contending, “[a] finding that one is less than forthcoming does not amount to a finding of falsification.”  Assuming that a finding of falsification requires intent, it matters not whether Naulls intentionally lied on his application.  What does matter is that he was required, under section 5.02.040, subdivision (A), of the City’s municipal code, to specify “[t]he exact nature or kind of business for which a license is requested,” which he failed to do.  He therefore provided incomplete information, in violation of the code, and as a result the City issued a business license which it would not otherwise have done.

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