What is the standard of review in appellate proceedings?

The standard of review defines how an appellate court reviews the ruling of a lower court when it is presented with an appeal. In Virginia, the standard of review in appellate proceedings depends on the nature of the case. For issues of law, the appellate court will review the lower court’s ruling de novo. This means that the appellate court will look at the case from scratch and make its own determination, without giving any deference to the ruling of the lower court. When it comes to issues of fact, the appellate court will generally review the findings of the lower court’s ruling for clear error. This means that even if the appellate court would have decided the case differently, it will not overturn the ruling of the lower court unless there is a clear and convincing reason to do so. Finally, a third standard of review can come into play in special cases. When the earlier ruling of the lower court was based upon its discretion, the appellate court will review the ruling for abuse of discretion. This means the appellate court will only overturn the lower court’s ruling if the decision was made in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In summary, in Virginia, the standard of review in appellate proceedings depends on the nature of the case. When the case involves issues of law, the appellate court reviews the case de novo. For issues of fact, the court reviews the lower court’s findings for clear error, and in special cases, it reviews the court’s use of discretion for abuse of discretion.

What is the standard of review in appellate proceedings?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts