Legal Definitions - AFF'G

AFF'G is an abbreviation for Affirming.

In the legal system, particularly within appellate courts, "affirming" means that a higher court has reviewed a decision made by a lower court and has decided to uphold or agree with that decision. When an appellate court affirms a lower court's ruling, it essentially states that the lower court's judgment was correct and will stand as originally decided.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Civil Lawsuit - Property Dispute

  A homeowner sued their neighbor over a property line dispute. The trial court ruled in favor of the homeowner, ordering the neighbor to remove a fence built on the homeowner's land. The neighbor appealed this decision, arguing the trial court misinterpreted the property deeds. After reviewing all the evidence and legal arguments, the state's Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the trial court's judgment. This means the appellate court agreed with the trial court's interpretation of the deeds and its decision, so the neighbor must still remove the fence.

• Example 2: Criminal Case - Drug Conviction

  A defendant was convicted of drug trafficking in a district court. The defendant's attorney appealed the conviction, claiming that evidence used against their client was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The higher court, after carefully examining the police procedures and relevant legal precedents, concluded that the search was lawful and the evidence was admissible. Consequently, the appellate court issued a ruling affirming the conviction, meaning the defendant's conviction and sentence from the lower court remain in place.

• Example 3: Administrative Law - Environmental Permit

  An environmental agency denied a company's application for a permit to expand its factory, citing potential harm to a local wetland. The company challenged the agency's decision in a specialized administrative court, arguing the agency's findings were arbitrary and capricious. The administrative court reviewed the agency's scientific data and decision-making process and found that the agency had acted within its authority and based its decision on sound evidence. The court therefore issued an order affirming the environmental agency's denial of the permit, upholding the agency's original decision.