Quiggle v. Franke CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 2014 No. D063707Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant forfeited her claims by failing to provide citations to legal authority and that the appellate court cannot reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations.

Issues

Whether the appellant's claims were waived due to a failure to provide citations to legal authority.
Whether the appellate court may reweigh the trial court's credibility determinations regarding witness testimony.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that Quiggle has forfeited her claims because she has provided no citations to authority in support of her contentions.”

“We further conclude that we may not reweigh the court's credibility determinations.”

“Appellate courts defer to a judge or jury's resolution of such factual issues because they have had the benefit of observing the demeanor of witnesses and are therefore in a better position to assess credibility.”

Filed 3/20/14 Quiggle v. Franke CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ELLYN QUIGGLE, D063707

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00095142- CU-HR-CTL) STEVEN BERT FRANKE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J.

Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Ellyn Quiggle, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

This appeal arises out of an order granting plaintiff Ellyn Quiggle a civil

restraining order to prevent harassment by defendant Steven Bert Franke, and a

subsequent order denying her request to find Franke in contempt of that order. Although

her brief is unclear it appears that Quiggle is asserting the court erred in not extending the

restraining order "in perpetuity" and not extending the protection of that order to her

daughter, Gabryelle. Quiggle also asserts that Franke's testimony at the contempt hearing

was not credible. We conclude that Quiggle has forfeited her claims because she has

provided no citations to authority in support of her contentions. We further conclude that

Quiggle v. Franke CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ELLYN QUIGGLE, D063707

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

I. WAIVER

II. MERITS

DISPOSITION

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

AI Brief