Lesson 38: Standards of Review
Exploring civil procedure fundamentals, best practices, and legal insights to navigate the complexities of civil procedure.
In the context of appeals, understanding the various standards of review is crucial for evaluating how appellate courts analyze lower court decisions. Standards of review define the degree of deference an appellate court gives to the decisions made by a trial court or administrative agency.
Types of Standards of Review
There are several key standards of review that appellate courts commonly use:
- De Novo: This standard is used when reviewing questions of law. The appellate court gives no deference to the trial court's decision and evaluates the issue as if it were being considered for the first time.
- Clear Error: Applied to factual findings made by a trial court, the appellate court will only overturn such findings if they are "clearly erroneous."
- Abuse of Discretion: This standard is used when reviewing a trial court's discretionary decisions. The appellate court will not overturn the decision unless it finds that the trial court made an arbitrary or unreasonable decision.
- Substantial Evidence: Often applied in administrative law contexts, this standard examines whether there is "substantial evidence" to support the agency's findings and conclusions.
Visualization of Standards of Review
Applying Standards of Review
The choice of standard of review can significantly affect the outcome of an appeal. For example, under the de novo standard, the appellate court has more freedom to overturn the lower court's ruling compared to the clear error or abuse of discretion standards, which are more deferential.
For a deeper dive into standards of review, check out Understanding Civil Procedure.
Interconnected Concepts
For more on how appeals fit into the broader framework of civil procedure, explore these related lessons: