Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)

Citation: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Parent Document: Pham v. Corbett, 187 Wash. App. 816 (2015)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2015-05-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4956711/pham-v-corbett/ ↗

Full Text

1,113 chars

¶13 “When a trial court has weighed the evidence in a bench trial, appellate review is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports its findings of fact and, if so, whether the findings support the trial court’s conclusions of law. Substantial evidence exists when there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded, rational person that a finding is true.” Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., 132 Wn. App. 546, 555-56, 132 P.3d 789 (2006) (citations omitted). A reviewing court begins with a presumption in favor of the trial court’s findings and the appellant has the burden of showing that a finding of fact is not supported by substantial evidence. Green v. Normandy Park Riviera Section Cmty. Club, Inc., 137 Wn. App. 665, 689, 151 P.3d 1038 (2007). Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 808, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Hegwine, 132 Wn. App. at 556 (citing Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873, 880, 73 P.3d 369 (2003)). Counterclaims in an Unlawful Detainer Action

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text