What is the standard of review in appellate proceedings?

In appellate proceedings, the standard of review is a legal term that describes the amount of deference given to the trial court’s ruling. Generally, the appellate court will not disturb the trial court’s judgment unless it finds an abuse of discretion or a misapplication of law. In other words, the court requires the trial court judge to make a decision that is reasonable and legally sound. In Illinois, appellate courts rely on a variety of standards of review. Generally, the court will adopt the more deferential standard, meaning the court will not overturn the lower court’s ruling unless it finds that it was a clear abuse of discretion or based on incorrect legal analysis. This means that the appellant (the person appealing the trial court’s decision) must clearly show that the trial court acted unreasonably or misapplied the law. However, there are certain situations where the court will adopt a more stringent standard of review. For example, in cases of constitutional issues, the court will conduct a de novo review and will examine the facts and evidence without any deference to the trial court’s decision. This means that the appellate court will assess the legal arguments and determine the outcome of the appeal without giving any deference to the lower court’s ruling. Overall, the standard of review in appellate proceedings varies depending on the type of legal issue or claim, but it generally requires the appellate court to show deference to the trial court’s decision unless it is an obvious abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law.

What is the standard of review in appellate proceedings?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts