Manage episode 342411387 series 3344448
What happens when the court fails to make required findings? Probably not, because the California Supreme Court says you still have to demonstrate prejudice. But in this episode of the California Appellate Law Podcast, Jeff Lewis and Tim Kowal talk about how, in certain kinds of cases, the prejudice analysis may give a very light touch, and so your chances of reversal are much higher.
Some recent cases suggest the courts may be pointing in different directions in appeals involving missing findings.
Jeff and Tim also cover some other recent cases that you may want to have in your toolkit:
- Failing to request a statement of decision changed the outcome of the appeal in Marriage of Burger.
- Missing findings in a domestic-violence custody case led to reversal in Hutchins v. Hutchins, even though the omission really was not prejudicial.
- Untimely Appeals May Be Excused If There Was a Mishap with E-Filing, held Garg v. Garg.
- A Dismissed Appeal Is Not “On the Merits” If the Dismissal Was for Mootness, held Parkford Owners for a Better Community v. Windeshausen.
- Does the Memo of Costs form have a fatal error by omitting the “penalty of perjury” language? Yes, says a dissenting justice in Srabian v. Triangle Truck Center.
Use this link to get a 25% lifetime discount on Casetext.
Other items discussed in the episode:
- Failure to Request a Statement of Decision Changed the Outcome of This Appeal
- Courts Really Mean It That Written Findings Are Required to Rebut the Fam. Code § 3044 Domestic-Violence Presumption
- Lawyer Toolkit: Untimely Appeals May Be Excused If There Was a Mishap with E-Filing
- A Dismissed Appeal Is Not “On the Merits” If the Dismissal Was for Mootness
- Arbitration Not Waived by 13 Months of Litigation? Supreme Court to Weigh In
- Fatal Error in Judicial Council Cost Memorandum Form, Says Dissenting Justice
- Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.