What is the standard of review for an appellate court’s interpretation of a statute?

When an appellate court interprets a statute, it looks at how the law has been written and interprets its meaning. The standard of review the court will use depends on the kind of case and the type of statute. Generally, appellate courts give “deference” or respect to the interpretation of a statute made by an agency or court who first considered the matter. When a statute is written with specific terms and language, the appellate court will determine whether the lower court or agency applied the law correctly. This is called de novo review and means the appellate court will review the issue without giving any deference to the interpretation made below. However, when the statute is vague or ambiguous, the appellate court will give deference to the interpretation made by the lower court or agency. This means the appellate court will not substitute its own interpretation, but instead the court will respect the interpretation made by the lower court or agency. In Hawaii, the standard of review the appellate court uses to interpret a statute will depend on the kind of case and the type of statute in question.

Related FAQs

What remedies are available for a party who loses an appeal?
What is the scope of review for an appellate court?
What happens if I lose my appeal?
What is the process for obtaining an appellate court review of a trial court’s decision?
Is oral argument available at the appellate level?
Who determines the merits of an appeal?
What are the consequences of an appellate court’s decision?
What is the appellate court’s scope of review for a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence?
What is the standard of review for an appellate court’s decision?
What is the purpose of an appellate brief?

What is the standard of review for an appellate court’s interpretation of a statute?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts