This post offers an overview of the legal standards appellate courts use to review decisions from lower courts, explaining the different levels of deference and their impact on case outcomes.
The Importance of the Standard of Review in Appellate Law
When a case is appealed, it’s not retried. Instead, a higher court reviews the lower court’s decision to determine if an error was made. The “standard of review” is the lens through which this review is conducted, and it dictates the amount of deference the appellate court gives to the lower court’s ruling. Understanding this concept is crucial because it often determines the likelihood of a successful appeal. An appellate court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court just because it might have decided the matter differently. It will only intervene if the lower court’s decision contains a clear, reversible error.
Key Standards of Review for Different Types of Questions
In the American legal system, the standard of review applied depends on the type of question being reviewed—whether it’s a question of law, fact, or a mixed question. Here are the three main standards you will encounter:
What is a Question of Law?
A question of law concerns the correct legal test to apply or the interpretation of a legal statute or rule. For example, was a law applied correctly to a given set of facts? This type of question is subject to the de novo review standard.
The Latin phrase de novo means “anew” or “from the beginning”. Under this standard, the appellate court gives no deference to the lower court’s legal conclusions. The appellate court reviews the issue with a fresh set of eyes, as if the case were being heard for the first time. This is the least deferential standard of review and offers the best chance for a successful appeal on a legal error.
What is a Question of Fact?
A question of fact relates to what actually happened between the parties in a dispute. Did a witness tell the truth? Did an event occur as described? These are the types of determinations that trial courts, particularly juries and judges in bench trials, are uniquely positioned to make.
Factual findings are generally reviewed under the clearly erroneous or substantial evidence standards. This is a highly deferential standard because the trial court had the advantage of observing witnesses and assessing their credibility firsthand. An appellate court will only reverse a finding of fact if it is left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”.
What is a Question of Discretion?
A question of discretion involves decisions where the trial court has a degree of choice or judgment, such as granting a motion or admitting evidence. These decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
This is another highly deferential standard, meaning the appellate court will not reverse the decision unless the trial court’s ruling was “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable”. The appellate court recognizes that the trial court is in the best position to make these judgments and gives them significant leeway.
Other Standards to Consider
While the three main standards cover most appellate issues, a few other notable standards exist:
- Rational Basis Review: Used in constitutional law, this standard is highly deferential to the legislature. A law will be upheld if there is a conceivable, rational relationship between the law and a legitimate government interest.
- Intermediate and Strict Scrutiny: Also used in constitutional law, these standards are less deferential. They require the government to demonstrate that a law serves a compelling or important government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Legal Tip: When preparing an appeal, it is critical to identify the correct standard of review for each issue you plan to raise. This dictates the arguments you must make and the threshold you must meet to succeed.
Understanding these different levels of deference is key to navigating the appellate process. The standard of review is not just a technicality; it is the very framework that determines how an appeal is fought and how it is decided.
Summary
- The standard of review is the level of deference an appellate court gives to a lower court’s decision.
- The three main standards are de novo review for questions of law, clearly erroneous review for questions of fact, and abuse of discretion for discretionary rulings.
- The standard of review is outcome-determinative and should be the central focus of any appellate brief.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the difference between standard of review and standard of proof?
A: The standard of review applies to appellate courts and determines how much deference they give to a lower court’s decision. The standard of proof (e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence”) applies at the trial court level and dictates the amount of evidence required to prove a case.
Q: Why do appellate courts give so much deference to trial courts on factual findings?
A: Trial courts, and particularly juries, have the unique opportunity to observe witnesses and evidence firsthand. Appellate courts only review a transcript or written record, so they defer to the trial court’s superior position to make credibility determinations and factual findings.
Q: Does the standard of review ever change?
A: While the core standards remain consistent, there are specific legal contexts, like certain First Amendment issues or new statutes, where an appellate court might apply an “independent review” which falls between de novo and clearly erroneous standards.
Disclaimer
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The information provided is a general overview and may not apply to your specific jurisdiction or situation. You should always consult with a qualified legal expert for advice tailored to your circumstances. This content was generated by an AI assistant based on publicly available information and should be reviewed by a professional for accuracy. Case law and statutes cited are for illustrative purposes and do not constitute an exhaustive or current list of legal authority.
Standard of review, appellate court, legal appeal, de novo review, clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion, questions of law, questions of fact, constitutional law, rational basis, strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, legal expert
Please consult a qualified legal professional for any specific legal matters.