Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)

Citation
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Parent Document
Fairchild v. Park, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 442 (2001)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2001-07-19

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text

1,135 chars
I can only infer from the trial court’s award of $12,000 in back rent that the electrical wiring, before the fire, had caused no damages and did not justify the nonpayment of rent. “The principles of review which must guide us are elementary. ... [A] ‘reviewing court is without power to substitute its deductions for those of the trial court.’ . . . [‘]“In brief, the appellate court ordinarily looks only at the evidence supporting the successful party, and disregards the contrary showing.” [Citation.] All conflicts, therefore, must be resolved in favor of the respondent.’ [. . . Citation.]” (Campbell v. Southern Pacific Co. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 51, 60 [148 Cal.Rptr. 596, 583 P.2d 121].) “All presumptions are in favor of the judgment. Trial judges and juries are the exclusive judges of credibility and may disbelieve any witness. Trial courts are designed and responsible for determining facts. Appellate courts are designed to review errors of law. Economy, efficiency, and practicality require recognition of those specialized roles.” (Rivard v. Board of Pension Commisioners (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 405, 412 [210 Cal.Rptr. 509].)