What is the standard of review for an appellate court?

The standard of review for an appellate court is the level of scrutiny that the court uses when deciding whether a lower court decision is valid. In general, appellate courts review lower court decisions for legal errors. In Arizona, the standard of review for an appellate court is known as de novo review, meaning that the appellate court makes its own independent decision without giving deference to the lower court’s decision. This means that the appellate court is free to review the facts and law and decide the case without binding itself to the lower court’s decision. The appellate court may affirm, modify, or reverse the lower court’s decision, depending on the merits of the case. When reviewing the facts and law, the appellate court must consider the evidence presented to the lower court and determine whether that evidence supports the decision made by the lower court. If the evidence does not support the lower court’s decision, the appellate court is free to find in favor of the appealing party. Ultimately, de novo review allows the appellate court to review a lower court’s decision without being bound to that decision.

Related FAQs

What is a motion for sanctions?
How can a party be added or removed from a lawsuit?
What is the doctrine of laches?
What is a negligence per se claim?
What is a motion to intervene?
What is the difference between civil and criminal procedure?
How does a plaintiff prove their case in a civil action?
What is the pleading stage of civil procedure?
What is the standard of review for an appellate court?
What is the difference between interrogatories and requests for production of documents?

What is the standard of review for an appellate court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts