Post-Trial and Appeals
Standards of Review
Standards range from de novo review of legal questions with no deference, to clear error review of factual findings, to abuse of discretion for discretionary rulings such as evidentiary decisions and case management.
Mixed questions of law and fact receive varying treatment depending on whether legal or factual analysis predominates.
Alternative Names:
Appellate Standard, Scope of Review
Why it Matters?
Selecting issues for appeal is largely an exercise in identifying which carry de novo review, because deferential standards rarely produce reversal. An evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion is a difficult appeal even where the ruling was wrong, while summary judgment or contract interpretation reviewed de novo gives the appellant a genuine second opportunity. Briefing should state the standard for each issue explicitly.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Which standard is most favorable to an appellant?
Why do evidentiary appeals rarely succeed?
