The standard of review refers to the level of deference that one court gives when evaluating the decisions made by a lower court or tribunal. In the United States, there are three primary standards of review: de novo review, arbitrary and capricious review, and the clearly erroneous standard. Each standard dictates how an appellate court examines the facts and legal conclusions from a lower court's ruling.
The standard of review is commonly used in various legal contexts, including civil, criminal, and administrative law. It plays a crucial role in appeals, where a higher court reviews the decisions of lower courts. Understanding the applicable standard of review is essential for parties involved in litigation, as it determines the likelihood of overturning a lower court's decision.
Users can manage certain legal procedures themselves by utilizing legal templates available through US Legal Forms, which are drafted by qualified attorneys.
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: In a civil case where a judge made a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, an appellate court may use de novo review to determine whether the judge applied the law correctly.
Example 2: If an administrative agency denies a permit, the appellate court may apply the arbitrary and capricious standard to decide if the agency acted within its legal authority (hypothetical example).
Examples of state differences (not exhaustive):
| State | Standard of Review |
|---|---|
| California | Uses de novo review for legal issues and substantial evidence for factual issues. |
| Texas | Applies the abuse of discretion standard for decisions made by trial courts. |
| New York | Utilizes the clearly erroneous standard in certain family law cases. |
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
| Term | Definition | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Standard of Review | The level of deference given by a court when reviewing a lower court's decision. | Focuses on the appellate court's approach to reviewing decisions. |
| Abuse of Discretion | A specific standard of review that assesses whether a lower court's decision was unreasonable. | Is one of the standards of review rather than a standalone concept. |
| De Novo | A standard of review where the appellate court re-evaluates the case from scratch. | Is a type of standard of review, not a general term. |
If you find yourself in a situation where the standard of review is relevant, consider the following steps:
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.