Also known as: clearly erroneous · clearly erroneous review · clear error standard · clearly erroneous standard of review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a trial court's factual findings may not be set aside unless the reviewing court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The standard requires particular deference to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility based on live testimony.
Cody Callahan sued Cedar Creek Farms after a disputed delivery. At the bench trial the judge credited the farm manager's live testimony over Callahan's expert and found no breach. On appeal the court applied the clearly erroneous standard and upheld the finding because the trial judge had observed the witnesses' demeanor.
Charlotte Chung challenged her conviction by arguing counsel failed to investigate. The district court made factual findings on the attorney's efforts after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reviewed those findings under the clearly erroneous standard and affirmed because the record supported the trial judge's assessment of credibility.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Corinne Cho contested the drug quantity attributed to her at sentencing. The district judge resolved conflicting testimony in detailed findings after a hearing. The court of appeals refused to disturb the findings under the clearly erroneous standard because the trial court had the best opportunity to weigh the witnesses.
Camila Cervantes alleged a zoning decision was racially motivated. After a bench trial the judge found no discriminatory purpose based on the officials' testimony. The appellate court upheld the finding under the clearly erroneous standard and gave due regard to the trial court's credibility judgments.
Carlos Castillo moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The district court found sufficient contacts after hearing live testimony. The appellate court reviewed the factual findings for clear error and affirmed because the trial judge was best positioned to assess the witnesses.
Chloe Chen sued after a patient threatened harm. The trial court found the therapist had no duty based on the evidence presented at the bench trial. The appellate court applied the clearly erroneous standard and upheld the factual findings because the judge had observed the witnesses firsthand.
The clearly erroneous standard governs. An appellate court may set aside a finding only when it is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made after reviewing the entire record.
Supporting sources
Particular deference is required. The trial judge observes demeanor and tone and is therefore better positioned than an appellate court reading a cold transcript.
Supporting sources
No objection or motion to amend findings is required. A party may later question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not it requested findings or objected to them.
Supporting sources
Pure questions of law receive de novo review. The clearly erroneous standard applies only to the factual components of mixed questions.
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…