Also known as: clear error review · clear-error standard · clear error standard · clear error · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An appellate standard requiring a reviewing court to uphold a trial court's factual findings unless the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The standard applies whether the evidence is oral or documentary and directs the reviewing court to give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility.
Cassandra Cooper sued Cedar Creek Farms after a disputed land survey. After a bench trial the district court credited the farm's surveyor and found no encroachment. On appeal Cooper argued the finding rested on flawed measurements. The appellate court applied clear-error review and affirmed because the trial judge had observed the surveyor's live testimony and the record did not produce a definite conviction of mistake.
Caitlin Crowley sued Cypress Technologies for breach after software failed to meet specifications. The district court found the contract required only basic functionality and credited internal emails over Crowley's expert report. Crowley appealed claiming the emails were ambiguous. The appellate court reviewed the finding for clear error and affirmed because the trial judge had weighed all documents and the record supported the conclusion.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Charlotte Chung challenged a permit denial by Coastal Shipping. After a bench trial the district court found the company's operations posed no environmental risk. Chung appealed arguing the finding involved a legal standard. The appellate court applied clear-error review to the factual components and upheld the judgment because the trial court had observed the expert witnesses.
Connor Clark challenged an agency rule on vehicle safety issued by Crown Pharmaceuticals. The record contained competing studies on brake performance. The district court found the agency's data reliable. Clark appealed. The appellate court reviewed the finding for clear error and affirmed because the trial court had weighed the studies and no definite mistake appeared.
Christian Coleman appealed his sentence after the district court found he had distributed a specific quantity of drugs. The finding rested on witness testimony the court found credible. Coleman argued the quantity was overstated. The appellate court applied clear-error review and upheld the finding because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record supported the determination.
Clifford Cox sued a college for breach of an employment contract governed by state law. The district court found the college had not promised lifetime tenure. Cox appealed. The appellate court reviewed the factual finding for clear error and affirmed because the trial court had assessed the witnesses and the record contained no definite mistake.
Clear-error review applies to factual findings made after a bench trial under Rule 52(a)(6). The standard requires the appellate court to uphold the findings unless the record leaves a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred. The rule expressly directs the reviewing court to give due regard to the trial court's credibility determinations.
Supporting sources
No. Rule 52(a)(6) requires clear-error review for findings of fact whether the evidence is oral or documentary. The trial court's opportunity to assess credibility still receives deference even when some evidence is in writing.
Supporting sources
No. Conflicting evidence alone does not establish clear error. The trial court may credit one witness over another after observing live testimony, and the appellate court must uphold that choice unless the record produces a definite conviction of mistake.
Supporting sources
…proceedings has been broadened — not narrowed — since the adoption of the Sixth Amendment. In such a proceeding, “it would be clearly erroneous to confine the inquiry to the proceedings and judgment of the trial court”[^maj-17] and the petitioned court has “power to inquire with regard to the jurisdiction of the inferior court,…