Also known as: clearly erroneous · clearly erroneous standard · clear error standard · clearly erroneous review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a trial court's factual findings are upheld unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The standard applies to findings based on oral testimony or other evidence and requires deference to the trial court's credibility assessments.
Colin Chambers sued Coastal Shipping after a bench trial in which the district judge credited the defendant's expert over conflicting neighbor testimony and water samples. The judge found no significant discharge from the facility. On appeal the reviewing court upheld the finding because it lacked a definite conviction of error after giving due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor.
Corinne Cho challenged a trial court's factual finding that her expert's causation opinion rested on insufficient data in a toxic-exposure suit. The district judge credited the defense evidence showing no reliable link to low-level exposure. The appellate court reviewed the finding for clear error and upheld it, lacking a definite conviction that a mistake had been made.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cameron Cruz objected to a magistrate judge's pretrial discovery order. The district judge reviewed the order and found it clearly erroneous on a factual determination about document production. The appellate court affirmed the district judge's modification because the magistrate's finding met the clear-error threshold.
Carmen Choi's company challenged a city's isolated rezoning of its parcel to residential use. The trial court found the rezoning arbitrary after comparing surrounding high-density uses. The appellate court reviewed the factual finding of arbitrariness for clear error and upheld the invalidation.
Cynthia Cortez challenged an agency's environmental-impact determination after a bench trial. The district court found the agency's factual conclusions unsupported by the record. The appellate court reviewed that finding for clear error and affirmed the remand order.
Crystal Dynamics appealed a bankruptcy court's determination that a municipal debtor was insolvent on the petition date. The district court reviewed the factual finding for clear error and affirmed because the record supported the conclusion without contrary inferences that would compel reversal.
Rule 52(a)(6) requires that findings of fact must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. The reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge witness credibility. This deferential standard applies whether the evidence is oral or documentary.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 52(a)(5) expressly permits a party to question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings even if the party did not request findings, object to them, or move to amend them. The rule preserves post-judgment review of sufficiency.
Supporting sources
Clear-error review applies to factual findings by the trial court. Abuse-of-discretion review applies to discretionary evidentiary rulings such as the exclusion of expert testimony. The latter asks whether the trial judge made a clear error of judgment or applied the wrong legal standard.
Supporting sources
Under Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) the district judge must modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Timely objections are required to preserve the issue for review.
Supporting sources
…judicial power in a relatively insignificant field, with substantial control, though not total control, in the courts — perhaps "clear error" review, which would be a fair judicial equivalent of the Attorney General's "for cause" removal power here. Is there any doubt that we would not pause to inquire whether the matter was…