Understanding standards of review
Just trying a case is trying enough. How can an attempt by corporate attorneys be expected to seem beyond the immediacy of trial and anticipate what a justice (or even three of them) may have for an appeal which will never be filed? It’s understandable that an attorney might want to specialize in winning at trial, but the trial lawyer is that the only one that is during a position to guard the case within the event an appeal is required.
Knowing the standards of review is vital for the trial lawyer because it educates the attorney on the way to approach a problem and the way to make an honest record which will be reviewed on appeal. This text will discuss the various standards of review and the way they impact trial lawyers.
Identifying the right standard of review is vital in the least stages, even at the appellate level. you would possibly think the appellate courts have reviewed thousands of briefs and will know what standard of review to use , but this is often not as easy because it sounds. Courts can disagree among themselves which standard applies, and even among the parties to the case, the quality is often hotly disputed. Every brief should identify the quality of review on each issue.
So, what are the standards of review?
•Independent (or “de novo”) review: This ground is raised when the difficulty is one among law and doesn't involve disputed facts. The appeals court examines the question de novo without giving any deference to the court . “That isn't to mention the appeals court disregards the trial court’s rationale for its decision. It often is most helpful and illustrates the important role trial courts play in shaping the law. We aren't averse to using all the assistance we will get.” Appeals supported this standard usually have a far better chance for fulfillment because the reviewing court isn't bound by the reasoning of the court and there's no got to defer to trial court’s rulings.
The appeals court may believe it's within the same, if not better, position to work out questions of law. After all, the appeals court has the advantage of a collective intellect and more resources for conducting lengthy and exhaustive legal research.
•A6«se of Discretion: In an appeal supported this standard, the appeals court examines the trial court’s discretionary rulings “and asks whether it exceeds the bounds of reason or is bigoted , whimsical or capricious. . . This standard involves abundant deference to the trial court’s rulings." If you think the court is acting beyond the bounds of reason or is bigoted , whimsical or capricious, attempt to get that language on the record. Sometimes trial courts are forthcoming about their reasons for ruling during a certain way, other times they like to keep it a mystery.
An attorney who prosecutes an appeal from an order addressed to the trial court’s sound discretion is confronted with quite a frightening task. This is often an uphill battle which, absent unusual circumstances, could also be equated with Confederate General John Bell Hood’s plan to capture 'Little Round Top’ at the battle of Gettysburg within the war . General Hood didn't succeed.
•Substantial evidence: This standard applies when the order or judgment involves a determination of disputed facts. it's frequently raised when an attempt has been concluded and therefore the jury or court found in favor of 1 party over the opposite supported the evidence presented. This ground can also arise when the court resolves any factual dispute.
Simply stated, the appellate courts are bound by the trial court’s resolution of disputed factual issues and must affirm the judgment goodbye because the judgment is supported by “substantial evidence.”
