Also known as: clearly erroneous standard · clear error · clear error standard
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a trial court's factual findings may be overturned only if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.
Craig Caldwell sued Cardinal Insurance after a coverage denial. At the bench trial the judge credited the insurer's adjuster and found no bad faith. On appeal Caldwell argued the finding lacked support. The appellate court upheld the finding because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record did not produce a firm conviction of error.
Crestview Holdings applied for a permit to operate a group home. The city council denied the application after hearing testimony on neighborhood impact. The district court upheld the denial. On appeal the reviewing court found the district court's factual assessment of safety concerns was not clearly erroneous and affirmed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Caleb Chang was convicted after his lawyer failed to investigate alibi witnesses. The state court found the lawyer's performance adequate. On federal habeas review the district court accepted that finding. The appellate court held the state court's factual determination was not clearly erroneous and denied relief.
Cedar Creek Farms sought rezoning for multifamily housing. The village denied the request. The district court found the denial was not racially motivated. On appeal the reviewing court concluded the district court's factual finding on intent was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
Crown Pharmaceuticals published an article that quoted extensively from a memoir. The district court found the use was not fair. On appeal the reviewing court examined the factual findings on market effect and held they were not clearly erroneous, so the judgment stood.
Claire Campbell was harmed after a therapist failed to warn her of a patient's threats. The trial court found the therapist had no duty. On appeal the reviewing court determined the factual finding on foreseeability was not clearly erroneous and affirmed the dismissal.
An appellate court may reverse only when it is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed after reviewing the entire record. The rule requires giving due regard to the trial court's credibility determinations.
Supporting sources
No. A party may later question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not the party requested findings or objected to them.
The court must find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately so that the appellate court can apply the clearly erroneous standard to the factual findings.
Questions of law receive de novo review with no deference to the trial court. Factual findings in bench trials receive deference and are overturned only if clearly erroneous.
…judicial power in a relatively insignificant field, with substantial control, though not total control, in the courts — perhaps "clear error" review, which would be a fair judicial equivalent of the Attorney General's "for cause" removal power here. Is there any doubt that we would not pause to inquire whether the matter was…