Standards of Review and Preservation of Issues
The Hierarchy of Review
California recognizes a spectrum: de novo (questions of law, statutory interpretation, summary judgment, demurrer rulings); substantial evidence (factual findings, especially after trial); abuse of discretion (evidentiary rulings, discovery sanctions, attorney fee awards); and clear error in limited contexts. The standard often determines the outcome more than the merits.
Preservation
An issue must be raised in the trial court to be reviewed on appeal. The objection requirement applies to evidence (Evid. Code § 353) and to jury instructions (CCP § 647; rule 8.130). A party who loses a motion in limine must renew the objection at trial unless the court gave a definitive ruling. Invited error bars a party from complaining about an error it induced.
The Substantial Evidence Trap
When the appellant challenges sufficiency of the evidence, review is limited to the record; the appellate court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, resolving conflicts and drawing inferences in favor of the respondent. An appellant who merely re-argues the weight of the evidence will lose.
The De Novo Trap
A ruling on a demurrer or summary judgment is reviewed de novo, but the appellate court applies the same three-step analysis as the trial court and does not weigh evidence. Questions sometimes ask whether the standard changes because the trial court stated reasons; it does not.
Worked Example
A trial court excludes an expert under Sargon. If counsel objected on relevance but not on the specific Sargon factors, the appellate court may find the specific challenge forfeited. Rule of thumb: object specifically, renew at trial, and tie the standard of review to the issue raised.