Also known as: serious error · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The standard under which findings of fact must not be set aside unless the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Stella Shapiro sued Summit Bank after a disputed loan transaction. Following a bench trial the district court entered judgment for the bank. Shapiro moved for a new trial arguing the findings on loan terms were seriously erroneous because the court credited the bank's expert despite contradictory internal memos. The court denied the motion because the findings rested on credibility choices that did not rise to the seriously erroneous level.
Synergy Systems sued Bose Corp. for false advertising after a jury found no material falsity in a published review. Synergy moved for a new trial claiming the verdict was seriously erroneous because the jury ignored internal test data showing the product performed differently than described. The district court denied the motion after concluding the evidence supported the verdict under the seriously erroneous standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Seminole Tribe of Florida sued the state after a jury rejected its claim for compact enforcement. The tribe moved for a new trial asserting the verdict was seriously erroneous because the jury overlooked evidence of state negotiation delays. The court denied the motion finding the verdict did not meet the seriously erroneous threshold.
Sydney Santos sued the City of Bessemer City after a jury found no discrimination in her promotion denial. Santos moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was seriously erroneous because the jury disregarded testimony about inconsistent hiring criteria. The court denied the motion after determining the evidence did not render the verdict seriously erroneous.
Nordberg sued Granfinanciera after a jury found no fraudulent transfer. Nordberg moved for a new trial claiming the verdict was seriously erroneous because the jury ignored evidence of insolvency at the time of the transfers. The court denied the motion holding the verdict was not seriously erroneous.
South Carolina sued federal officials after a jury upheld a voting statute. South Carolina moved for a new trial asserting the verdict was seriously erroneous because the jury discounted evidence of discriminatory impact. The court denied the motion after finding the verdict did not satisfy the seriously erroneous standard.
The seriously erroneous standard allows the court to weigh evidence and assess credibility when deciding whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The JMOL test asks only whether any reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant and prohibits weighing or credibility judgments.
Supporting sources
An appellate court may set aside findings only when left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The court must give due regard to the trial judge's opportunity to assess witness credibility.
Supporting sources
No. A party may question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings even if it never requested findings, objected to them, or moved to amend them.
Supporting sources
The court must state the findings and conclusions that support its action so the basis for the decision is apparent from the record and appellate review under the clearly erroneous standard is possible.
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…