Legal Definitions - contrary to the evidence

The legal phrase contrary to the evidence describes a situation where a decision, a finding, or an argument made in a legal proceeding does not align with the overall strength and persuasiveness of the information and facts presented during that hearing or trial.

Essentially, it means that despite a conclusion being reached, the majority or most compelling evidence pointed towards a different outcome. This term is often used when challenging a decision, suggesting that the decision-maker disregarded or misinterpreted the weight of the facts.

• Example 1: Civil LawsuitVerdict

  Imagine a jury in a personal injury lawsuit finds a defendant not responsible for a car accident. However, during the trial, three independent eyewitnesses testified that they saw the defendant run a red light, and dashcam footage from another vehicle clearly showed the defendant's car entering the intersection against a red signal. In this scenario, the jury's verdict could be considered contrary to the evidence because the overwhelming factual information presented pointed to the defendant being at fault.

• Example 2: Administrative Board Decision

  Consider a professional licensing board reviewing a complaint against a financial advisor. The board decides to suspend the advisor's license based solely on an anonymous tip, even though the advisor presented extensive documentation, including client testimonials, audited financial statements, and a clean regulatory record spanning two decades, all demonstrating ethical conduct. The board's decision to suspend the license would be contrary to the evidence because the vast majority of credible information supported the advisor's good standing and refuted the anonymous claim.

• Example 3: Appellate Court Review of a Judge's Ruling

  A trial judge rules that a particular piece of real estate belongs to Party A, based on a single, somewhat ambiguous handwritten note. However, during the trial, Party B presented a notarized deed, official property tax records, and multiple sworn affidavits from long-term residents confirming their ownership. An appeals court reviewing the case might find the trial judge's ruling contrary to the evidence, as the clear and legally recognized documents overwhelmingly supported Party B's claim of ownership.