What is the standard of review for an appellate court?

Appellate courts are tasked with reviewing the decisions of lower courts. The standard of review for these courts is the standard used to decide if the lower court made a legal error on a certain issue. In Washington, appellate courts are generally required to review a lower court’s decision with a “clearly erroneous” standard. This means that a decision of the lower court will not be overturned unless the appellate court believes that the lower court made an error that is clear and can be ascertained in the record. Under this standard, the appellate court will not weigh the evidence or make its own findings; instead, it will determine if the lower court made any legal mistakes that affected the outcome of the case. For example, if the lower court misapplied the law or misinterpreted the facts, an appellate court may overturn the lower court’s decision if it is clear that the error affected the outcome of the case. Appellate courts also review lower court decisions with a “de novo” standard in certain cases, meaning the appellate court will make its own independent determination without relying on the decision of the lower court. This is the standard of review for certain issues, such as questions of law or questions of fact. However, the “clearly erroneous” standard is the primary standard of review for appellate courts in Washington.

Related FAQs

What are the challenges to a summons?
What is a motion for a new trial?
What are the grounds for a restraining order?
What are the rules of evidence in civil procedure?
What is civil procedure?
What is the difference between a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment?
What is the pleading stage of civil procedure?
What is a motion to quash a subpoena?
What is the difference between civil and criminal procedure?
What is the doctrine of laches?

What is the standard of review for an appellate court?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts