The appellee and appellant may take different views about what is the most appropriate standard of review. The criterion and level of deference by which the decision of a lower court or tribunal will be measured on appeal. It tells the appellate court what it must find in order to reverse the decision by the lower court or administrative agency. To determine the standard of review, first characterize the issue in one of the following categories:.
In a de novo review the appellant is asking the court to look at issues of law anew and affords the lower court no level of deference. Mixed issues of fact and law are also reviewed under this standard though some mixed issues rooted in fact may be decided under the clearly erroneous standard. In a de novo review, the appellate court steps into the position of the lower tribunal and re-decides the issue.
If the appellate court's decision is the same, it affirms; if different, it reverses. When reviewing questions of law, appellate courts must find errors of law and that such errors were prejudicial to the appellant.
The clearly erroneous standard is applied to issues of fact. Deference is paid to the trial court's findings. Generally, an appellate court must have a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made by the trial court. The burden is on the appellant to identify the alleged erroneous factual finding and to overcome the presumption of correctness applied to all lower court decisions. Under the abuse of discretion standard, the reviewing court must have a definite and firm conviction that the lower court committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of relevant factors.
And, the lower court must have the discretion to make the judgment it did. Check the court rules. The abuse of discretion standard affords virtually the same amount of deference to the decisions of lower tribunals as the clearly erroneous standard though the clearly erroneous standard affords lower courts slightly more deference. Where there can only be one correct answer to the admissibility of evidence, Hawaii appellate courts apply this standard. However, the traditional abuse of discretion standard should be applied in the case of those rules of evidence that require a 'judgment call' on the part of the trial court.
County of Haw. Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, the court considers whether the agency's decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.
The standard is highly deferential to the agency. If there is a conflict in the evidence and a reasonable fact-finder could have resolved the conflict either way, the appellate court will not overturn the trial court's decision.
Because the judge or jury at the trial saw the witnesses and heard what the witnesses said, they were in a better position to decide what actually happened and who was telling the truth. De novo is a Latin phrase meaning "from the beginning. This type of review is generally limited to issues involving questions of law. If the issues involve questions of law — like the interpretation of a contract or a statute — the appellate court does not assume the trial court's ruling is correct but looks at the issue from the beginning de novo , exercising its independent judgment.
But this kind of review is still not a new trial because the appellate court does not look at new evidence and bases its review on the evidence in the record from the trial court. Skip to main content Skip to topics menu Skip to topics menu. Cancel Print. Advanced Search. Appeals Process. The side that files the appeal is called the "appellant. The side that appeals the appellant can ask the appellate court to decide if certain kinds of legal errors mistakes were made: Prejudicial error: This kind of error is a mistake about the law or court procedures that causes substantial harm to the appellant.
The appellate court will typically find that the decision was an abuse of discretion if the discretionary decision was made in plain error. The abuse of discretion standard is used for when a lower court makes a discretionary ruling. On appeal, if a party challenges the ruling, then the appellate court will use the abuse of discretion standard to review the ruling.
The abuse of discretion standard is used by appellate courts to review lower court decisions in both criminal law and civil law.
0コメント