Description

Appellate courts are in the affirming business. But be ready to take advantage of easy reversals, like in these examples:

😎 If the court refuses to hold an evidentiary hearing in a contested probate matter, that is (probably) structural error and reversible.

😎 If the court refuses to provide a statement of decision on key issues, that is a good opening to get a reversal.

😎 If the court judges a party’s credibility based on whether they use an interpreter, that’s reversible error.

😎 If the court issues a restraining order based on a single act, that’s reversible error.

Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.

Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.

Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.

The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.

Other items discussed in the episode:

• Refusing an evidentiary hearing on contested probate matter is error, and possibly structural error: Barbey v. Pnc Bank, N.A. (D2d6 Oct. 10, 2023) No. B325472 (nonpub. opn.)
• Lack of statement of decision leads to reversal: Casa Verde Landscaping Maint. Corp. v. Lennary Cmtys. (D4d1 Oct. 24, 2023 D081550) [nonpub. opn.]
• Arbitrator reversed for basing credibility on use of interpreter: FCM Invs. v. Grove Pham, LLC (D4d1 Oct. 17, 2023) No. D080801.
• Restraining order against an attorney must be based on multiple instances of non-litigation conduct: Hansen v. Volkov (D2d7 Sep. 18, 2023) No. B311524 (cert. for pub.)
• You still need a reporter's transcript even if nothing happened at the hearing: Olague v. United Care Facilities, LLC (D2d5 Sep. 29. 2023) No. B323075 (nonpub. opn.).
• After Adolph v. Uber, parties “accept the inevitable” and stipulate to reverse: Stiger v. Providence St. Joseph Health, No. B326999 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2023)
• Ross v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Sep. 29, 2023, B312337) [pp. 26-27]
• Landlord’s counsel sanctioned for brief with made up cases
• Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.