More presumptions that favor the appellant

The presumption in favor of the appellant is applied in nonsuits and directed verdicts, although the substantial evidence standard is applicable in reviewing the appeal. Thus, the court will assume plaintiff's evidence as true, including reasonable inferences, and determine whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action. (Freeman v. Lind (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 791, 799; In re Fossa’s Estate (1963) 210 Cal.App.2d 464, 466.)  If a motion in limine is considered tantamount to a nonsuit, the applicable standard of review will be the same.  (Fergus v. Songer (2007) 150 Cal. App.4th 552, 569-570.)

Appellants in situations involving erroneous or refused jury instructions also enjoy presumptions in their favor.  In such cases, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the claim of instructional error, assuming the jury might have believed the evidence upon which the instruction was predicated and the jury might have rendered a verdict in appellant’s favor.  (Whiteley v. Philip Morris Inc. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 635, 655; Ayala v. Arroyo Vista Family Health Center (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

While reviews of anti-SLAPP motions are done on an independent standard, the trial court will presume and accept as true appellant’s evidence and considers the respondent’s evidence only to determine if it has defeated the appellant’s evidence as a matter of law.  “We review the trial court’s order de novo . . . We will not weigh the evidence; rather, we accept as true evidence favorable to the plaintiff, and evaluate evidence favorable to the defendant to determine whether it defeats the plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law.”  (Neville v. Chudacoff (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1262.)

An appeal may involve one or more standards of review, and an issue may also involve a mixture of the standards.  Knowing the standard of review is important to the trial attorney so that if an error occurs, the trial attorney understands how to protect the record and present the appellate court with all of the information it needs to conduct a meaningful review.