Legal Definitions - standard of review

The term standard of review refers to the specific set of rules or criteria that a higher court (an appellate court) uses when examining a decision made by a lower court. It dictates how closely the appellate court will scrutinize the lower court's actions, findings, or legal interpretations. Essentially, it's the lens through which the appeals court evaluates whether the lower court made a mistake that warrants overturning or changing its decision. Different types of decisions by a lower court (e.g., factual findings, legal rulings, or discretionary choices) are typically reviewed under different standards.

Here are some examples illustrating how the standard of review applies:

• Example 1: Reviewing a Judge's Interpretation of a Law

  Imagine a trial judge rules on a case by interpreting a specific clause in a new environmental protection statute. The losing party believes the judge misinterpreted the law and appeals the decision. The appellate court will likely apply a "de novo" standard of review to this legal question. This means the appellate court will review the judge's interpretation of the statute from scratch, giving no special deference to the trial judge's legal conclusion. They will decide for themselves what the law means.

  This example illustrates the standard of review because it shows the appellate court using a specific criterion (de novo review) to evaluate the lower court's legal ruling, indicating a high level of scrutiny for legal interpretations.

• Example 2: Reviewing a Jury's Factual Findings

  Consider a civil lawsuit where a jury, after hearing all the evidence, determines that a construction company was negligent in building a faulty bridge. The construction company appeals, arguing there wasn't enough evidence presented to support the jury's finding of negligence. The appellate court will likely apply a "clear error" or "sufficiency of the evidence" standard of review. Under this standard, they will only overturn the jury's factual finding if no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion, or if the finding is "clearly erroneous" and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The appellate court gives significant deference to the jury's role as the primary fact-finder.

  This example demonstrates the standard of review by showing a different criterion (clear error/sufficiency of evidence) applied to a lower court's factual determination, indicating a much more deferential approach compared to reviewing a legal interpretation.