Also known as: clearly err · clearly errs · clearly erring · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A highly deferential standard of appellate review applied to a trial court's findings of fact in a nonjury case. An appellate court may set aside those findings only when left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made after reviewing the entire record. The standard requires special deference to the trial court's credibility determinations because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Harborfront Holdings sued Bayline Storage to quiet title over an easement. After a bench trial the district judge credited an elderly neighbor's live testimony about decades of use despite conflicting maps. On appeal Harborfront argued the judge should have favored the documents. The appellate court reviewed the finding only for clear error and affirmed because the trial judge's opportunity to assess demeanor supported the credibility choice.
A district judge found that a defendant possessed a firearm during a drug offense based on conflicting witness accounts. The appellate court reviewed the finding under the clear-error standard. Because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record supported the determination, the appellate court left the finding undisturbed.
A district court found that a village's zoning decision was not motivated by discriminatory intent after weighing testimony and documentary evidence. On appeal the housing developer argued the finding was clearly erroneous. The appellate court applied clear-error review and affirmed because the trial judge's credibility assessments were entitled to deference.
A state court found that defense counsel's strategic choices were reasonable after hearing testimony at a post-conviction hearing. On federal habeas review the prisoner argued the finding was clearly erroneous. The reviewing court applied the clear-error standard and deferred to the state court's opportunity to judge credibility.
A trial court found that a therapist had no duty to warn a third party after evaluating the patient's statements and the therapist's testimony. On appeal the plaintiff argued the finding was clearly erroneous. The appellate court reviewed for clear error and affirmed because the trial judge's firsthand credibility assessment controlled.
A district judge found that a magazine's use of excerpts was not fair use after weighing the amount taken and market effect. The publisher appealed arguing the finding was clearly erroneous. The appellate court applied clear-error review and affirmed because the trial court's opportunity to assess the evidence supported the determination.
Yes. Rule 52 expressly provides that a party may later question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not the party requested findings, objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings. The clinic in the medical-malpractice case could therefore argue on appeal that the causation finding lacked evidentiary support.
Supporting sources
…See also 7 Record 648-649. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires that "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous," and neither Rudzewicz nor the Court of Appeals has pointed to record evidence that would support a "definite and firm conviction" that the District Court's findings are mistaken. United…
…claim are subject to the deference requirement of § 2254(d), and although district court findings are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), both the performance and prejudice components of the ineffectiveness inquiry are mixed questions of law and fact. V Having…
…independent evidence. The Court of Appeals correctly concluded that the trial court’s finding that a conspiracy existed was not clearly erroneous
…have a negative effect on property values and the safety of the neighborhood. The Court of Appeals rejected this finding as
…court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and, except with respect to determinations under subsection (3)(A) or (3)(B), shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. With respect to…
An appellate court reverses only when, after reviewing the entire record, it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. It is not enough that the appellate court would have weighed the evidence differently or finds an alternative finding more reasonable.
Supporting sources
The trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor, tone, and nonverbal cues that do not appear on a cold transcript. The rule therefore directs appellate courts to give due regard to that opportunity when reviewing findings based on oral testimony.
Supporting sources
Yes when the findings are so sparse that they prevent meaningful appellate review. A bare conclusion that a party failed to carry its burden supplies no basis for determining how the court resolved conflicting evidence and therefore constitutes reversible error under Rule 52.
Supporting sources