Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
3. Is the appellate court likely to overturn the findings?
A construction contractor brought a breach of contract claim in federal court against a homeowner who had hired the contractor to build an apartment over an existing garage. The action turned on the scope of the work covered by the contract. The contractor and the homeowner were the only witnesses at the bench trial, and they strongly disagreed about the scope of the work. At the end of the trial, the judge stated findings of fact on the record but never issued a written opinion. Neither party objected to the findings. The judge found in favor of the homeowner, and the contractor appealed.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Appellate courts use a different standard of review for pure questions of law and issues of fact. If the issue is a pure question of law, the appeals court typically reviews the issue de novo, which means no deference will be given to the trial court's ruling, and the appellate court will decide the issue from scratch. When the issue involves solely findings of fact and those facts were found by a jury, appellate courts are very reluctant to reverse. In federal court, the Re-examination Clause of the Seventh Amendment and Supreme Court case law hold federal courts to a very high standard for reversing a jury's findings. A federal appeals court will generally overturn a jury verdict because of what it perceives as a fact-finding error only if there is a complete absence of proof on some material issue.
Appellate courts apply a «clearly erroneous» standard when reviewing the fact-finding of a judge in a bench trial. Outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 52(a)(6), federal courts must not set aside findings of fact made from the bench unless those findings were clearly erroneous.
When reviewing discretionary rulings by the trial court, such as evidentiary or discovery rulings, appellate courts will use the abuse of discretion standard of review. The reviewing appellate court will be highly deferential to the trial court judge's fact-finding ability.
FRCP 52(a)(1) states that «findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court.»
A is correct. In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or other evidence, must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and the reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility. In this case, the judge made findings of fact based on the witnesses' testimony. The appellate court will not overturn these findings unless clearly erroneous, a very high standard to meet.
B is incorrect. The contractor may still appeal the judge's findings. However, the appellate court must give deference to the trial judge's findings.
C is incorrect. FRCP 52(a)(1) states that a judgment may be stated on the record or in an opinion or memorandum. It is not required that a judge always produce a written opinion.
D is incorrect. When a judge sits without a jury, the judge acts as both the finder of fact and law. The judge may decide disputed issues of fact, which are given great deference in the appellate court.