Bowers v. Bernards
Decision Date | 12 January 1984 |
Citation | 197 Cal.Rptr. 925,150 Cal.App.3d 870 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Richard BOWERS and Susan Bowers, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Ralph BERNARDS, Defendant and Respondent. AO15585. |
Certified for Partial Publication.
Steven D. Siner, Siner & Siner, Inc., San Jose, for plaintiffs/appellants.
Robert J. Smith, Mountain View, for defendant/respondent.
By plaintiffs Bowers' action against defendant Bernards for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain real property (hereafter the property), or, in the alternative, for damages for breach of the agreement, the relief sought at the trial was specific performance alone. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant Bernards, from which judgment plaintiffs Bowers have appealed.
We shall affirm the judgment, and proceed to state our reasons therefor.
The principal issue of the appeal is whether the superior court's findings of fact in favor of defendant were supported by the evidence. As to this issue we are afforded little aid by the parties.
Plaintiffs, disregarding all evidence unfavorable to them, have culled from the record only such as might be deemed helpful on their appeal. That evidence is then offered to us as the "facts of the case," calling for reversal of the judgment. (However, from embarrassment, or whatever, in their closing appellate brief plaintiffs concede that they had "attempted to slant the facts to suit [their] particular needs," and then ask that we cast "aside each party's version" and consider "those key facts which are uncontroverted.")
Defendant, on the other hand, insists that we abide by the following rules, which we quote verbatim from his appellate brief:
As we have found not at all uncommon in the many appeals taken to this court, both of the parties completely misapprehend the law.
We are of course concerned with the "substantial evidence rule" of appellate procedure.
It is now the settled law of this state that in civil and criminal cases alike, "substantial evidence " is such as was elaborated and defined in Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644, 247 P.2d 54. It is evidence (the emphasis is ours) "of ponderable legal significance, ... reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value." (People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 771, fn. 34, 175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738; Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Inc. (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 628, 651, 180 Cal.Rptr. 522; In re Lynna B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 682, 695, 155 Cal.Rptr. 256; Cansdale v. Board of Administration (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 656, 662, 130 Cal.Rptr. 880; Pennel v. Pond Union School Dist. (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 832, 837, fn. 2, 105 Cal.Rptr. 817; White v. State of California (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 738, 759, 99 Cal.Rptr. 58; In re Marriage of Russo (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 72, 87, 98 Cal.Rptr. 501; Lucas v. Southern Pacific Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 124, 136, 96 Cal.Rptr. 356.) "Obviously the word cannot be deemed synonymous with 'any' evidence." (People v. Bassett (1968) 69 Cal.2d 122, 139, 70 Cal.Rptr. 193, 443 P.2d 777; Mann v. Columbia Pictures, Inc., supra, 128 Cal.App.3d p. 651, 180 Cal.Rptr. 522; White v. State of California, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d p. 759, 99 Cal.Rptr. 58; In re Marriage of Russo, supra, 21 Cal.App.3d p. 87, 98 Cal.Rptr. 501.) And: "The [reviewing] court does not [as defendant here contends] limit its review to evidence favorable to the respondent." (Our emphasis; People v. Johnson, supra, 26 Cal.3d p. 577, 162 Cal.Rptr. 431, 606 P.2d 738.)
Unlike the former practice, reviewing courts will now, in determining the existence of substantial evidence, look to the entire record of the appeal, and will not limit their appraisal "to isolated bits of evidence selected by the respondent." (People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClain v. Kissler
..., there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the determination." ( Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873–874, 197 Cal.Rptr. 925.) Without a complete record that includes the evidence submitted by both parties, we could not say the evidence ......
-
Las Palmas Associates v. Las Palmas Center Associates
...(Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 503, 198 Cal.Rptr. 551, 674 P.2d 253; Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874, 197 Cal.Rptr. 925.) The appellate court cannot limit its review of the record to the evidence cited by the respondent; it must consider t......
-
Zurich Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., D016835
...the meaning of the policy is supported by substantial evidence and hence should be upheld by this court. (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874, 197 Cal.Rptr. 925.) However, here, the facts were essentially undisputed, and the trial court made a ruling of law interpreting th......
-
Us Ecology, Inc. v. State
...of review, our duty "begins and ends" with assessing whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. (Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 870, 873-874, 197 Cal.Rptr. 925, italics omitted.) "[The] reviewing court starts with the presumption that the record contains evidence to sustai......