upgrade

💡intro to intellectual property review

Standard of Review

Written by the Fiveable Content Team • Last updated September 2025
Written by the Fiveable Content Team • Last updated September 2025

Definition

The standard of review refers to the level of deference or scrutiny that an appellate court applies when reviewing a lower court's decision. It determines the degree to which the appellate court will defer to or independently evaluate the findings and conclusions of the lower court.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

  1. The standard of review determines the level of deference the appellate court will give to the lower court's decision, ranging from highly deferential to completely independent review.
  2. The choice of standard of review depends on the type of issue being appealed, such as questions of law, questions of fact, or discretionary decisions.
  3. De novo review is the most stringent standard, where the appellate court examines the legal issues without any deference to the lower court's conclusions.
  4. The abuse of discretion standard is the most deferential, where the appellate court will only overturn a lower court's decision if it was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable.
  5. The clear error standard falls between de novo and abuse of discretion, where the appellate court defers to the lower court's factual findings unless they are clearly unsupported by the record.

Review Questions

  • Explain the difference between the de novo and abuse of discretion standards of review.
    • The de novo standard of review is the least deferential, where the appellate court examines the legal issues completely independently, without any deference to the lower court's conclusions. In contrast, the abuse of discretion standard is the most deferential, where the appellate court will only overturn a lower court's decision if it was arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly unreasonable. Under the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court gives substantial deference to the lower court's decision-making process and will not substitute its own judgment unless the lower court's ruling was clearly an abuse of its discretion.
  • Describe how the clear error standard of review differs from the other standards.
    • The clear error standard of review falls between the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard and the completely independent de novo review. Under the clear error standard, the appellate court defers to the lower court's factual findings and will only overturn them if they are clearly unsupported by the record, despite giving deference to the lower court's assessment of witness credibility and weighing of evidence. This standard recognizes the lower court's superior position to evaluate the facts presented at trial, while still allowing the appellate court to correct factual findings that are clearly erroneous.
  • Analyze how the choice of standard of review can impact the outcome of an appeal.
    • The standard of review chosen by the appellate court can significantly influence the outcome of an appeal. A highly deferential standard, such as abuse of discretion, makes it much more difficult for the appellant to overturn the lower court's decision, as the appellate court will only intervene if the lower court's ruling was clearly unreasonable. Conversely, a de novo standard of review gives the appellate court full authority to independently evaluate the legal issues, potentially leading to a different outcome than the lower court's decision. The clear error standard strikes a balance, allowing the appellate court to correct factual findings that are clearly unsupported, while still deferring to the lower court's assessment of witness credibility and weighing of evidence. The choice of standard of review is therefore a critical factor in the appellate process and can determine whether the lower court's decision is upheld or reversed.