Also known as: deferential review · deferential standard of review · abuse of discretion · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a higher court upholds a lower court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and respects the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility. The same deferential approach applies to many discretionary rulings such as evidentiary decisions, which are overturned only for abuse of discretion.
David Dawson sued Diamond Manufacturing after a workplace injury. At the bench trial the judge credited the company's safety manager over Dawson's account of the accident and entered judgment for the defendant. On appeal Dawson argued the finding lacked support. The appellate court affirmed because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record contained no clear error.
Dominic Drake sued Dawson Steel after a machinery failure. Drake offered an expert who linked the failure to a manufacturing defect based on limited test data. The district court excluded the testimony for an analytical gap between the data and the opinion. The appellate court reviewed the exclusion for abuse of discretion and affirmed the ruling.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Darius Dixon and other workers sued Duarte Shipping alleging widespread wage violations. The district court denied class certification after finding individual issues predominated. On appeal the workers argued the decision misapplied the predominance requirement. The appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld the denial.
Dominion Capital sued Diego Duarte in state court despite a contractual clause designating a federal forum. The district court transferred the case under the clause. Duarte appealed arguing the transfer was improper. The appellate court reviewed the enforcement decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed the transfer.
South Carolina challenged federal preclearance requirements for changes to its election laws. The district court upheld the requirements after finding they were justified by a history of discrimination. On appeal the state argued the findings were erroneous. The appellate court applied deferential review and affirmed the ruling.
The government sought to enjoin publication of classified documents by a newspaper. The district court refused the injunction after balancing the competing interests. On appeal the government argued the refusal was erroneous. The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the decision.
The clearly erroneous standard governs review of factual findings under Rule 52(a)(6). Abuse of discretion applies to many discretionary rulings such as evidentiary decisions and class certification orders.
Supporting sources
No. A party may question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting findings even without having requested findings or objected to their sparsity before judgment.
Supporting sources
The proponent must make an offer of proof describing the substance of the excluded evidence unless the substance is apparent from context. Without an offer of proof the appellate court cannot assess whether the exclusion was erroneous or prejudicial.
Supporting sources
…it under Rule 403 or 702. Daubert , --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2798. Such a ruling would be reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. One other procedural matter detains us. According to plaintiffs, they weren't required to come forward with any evidence to survive summary judgment because the affidavit of…