Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)

Citation: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Parent Document: Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-06-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617811/eshagian-v-cepeda/ ↗

Full Text

1,329 chars

8
35 Cal.4th 15, 21; accord, Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696; see Jennings v. Marralle (1994)
8 Cal.4th 121, 126 [“[e]xistence of an appealable judgment is a
jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal”].) “The right to appeal is
wholly statutory.” (Dana Point Safe Harbor Collective v. Superior
Court (2010) 51 Cal.4th 1, 5 (Dana Point); accord, Finance
Holding Co., LLC v. Molina (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 663, 673.) As
the Supreme Court explained in Dana Point, section 904.1
(pertaining to general civil appeals) “lists appealable judgments
and orders. Chief among them is a ‘judgment’ that is not
interlocutory, e.g., a final judgment. A judgment is the final
determination of the rights of the parties [citation] ‘“‘when it
terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the
case and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution
what has been determined.’”’” (Dana Point, at p. 5, fn. omitted;
accord, Finance Holding Co., at p. 674.) The same is true for
appeals in limited civil cases under section 904.2. 4
       “‘“It is not the form of the decree but the substance and
effect of the adjudication which is determinative. As a general
test, which must be adapted to the particular circumstances of
the individual case, it may be said that where no issue is left for

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text