Also known as:clearly erroneous reviews · clearly erroneous standard · clearly erroneous standard of review · clear error review · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review under which a court must uphold a trial court's factual findings unless the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. The standard requires special deference to the trial court's credibility determinations because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe witnesses firsthand.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Wetland Contamination Findings Upheld
Allied Nature sued Liberty Eco after a bench trial in which the district court credited the defendant's environmental consultant and found no significant discharge into the wetland. On appeal Allied Nature argued that the neighbors' testimony, volunteer test results, and historical photographs should have produced a different outcome. The appellate court applied clearly erroneous review and affirmed because the trial judge's credibility choice after live testimony did not leave a definite conviction of error.
Truck Driver Credibility Affirmed
Cheryl sued Elm Cargo after a collision and the district court found the van driver solely at fault by crediting the truck driver's live testimony over his earlier inconsistent police statements. Elm Cargo appealed, contending the contradiction required reversal. The appellate court refused to set the finding aside because the trial judge's opportunity to observe demeanor supported the credibility determination under clearly erroneous review.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Study Supplements
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985)
Franchise Sales Underreporting Sustained
Sean sued Park Merchandise for wrongful termination and the district court found he had underreported sales after crediting the district manager's live testimony over ambiguous point-of-sale records. Sean appealed on the ground that the finding was clearly erroneous. The appellate court affirmed because the trial court's credibility assessment after observing the witness did not produce a firm conviction of mistake.
Salve Regina College v. Russell499 U.S. 225, 238 (1991)
Sentencing Fact Findings Deferred To
After a federal sentencing hearing the district court found that the defendant had possessed a firearm during the offense. The defendant appealed the factual determination. The appellate court reviewed the finding for clear error and upheld it because the trial judge's assessment of the evidence after hearing testimony did not leave a definite conviction that a mistake occurred.
United States v. Booker543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Actual Malice Determination Affirmed
Bose Corporation sued Consumers Union for product disparagement and the district court found actual malice after weighing conflicting testimony about the accuracy of the published statements. Consumers Union appealed the factual finding. The appellate court applied clearly erroneous review and sustained the determination because the trial judge's credibility choices did not produce a firm conviction of error.
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.466 U.S. 485, 514 n.31 (1984)
Waiver of Counsel Finding Reviewed
Johnson was convicted after a trial at which he appeared without counsel. He later sought habeas relief claiming the waiver was invalid. The district court found the waiver knowing and intelligent. On appeal the reviewing court applied clearly erroneous review to the factual determination of waiver and upheld it because the trial court's assessment of the defendant's understanding did not leave a definite conviction of mistake.
Johnson v. Zerbst304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What standard does an appellate court apply to factual findings made after a federal bench trial?+
The appellate court must uphold the findings unless they are clearly erroneous and must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge witness credibility. This rule appears in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6).
Supporting sources
Does the presence of contradictory documentary evidence automatically render a trial court's factual finding clearly erroneous?+
No. The trial court remains free to credit live testimony over conflicting documents after observing the witness. Only a definite conviction that a mistake occurred justifies reversal under the clearly erroneous standard.
Supporting sources
May an appellate court independently reweigh witness credibility on appeal from a bench trial?+
No. The clearly erroneous standard requires deference precisely because the trial judge had the opportunity to observe demeanor. An appellate court may not substitute its own credibility assessments for those of the trial court.
Supporting sources
304 U.S. 458 (1938)Criminal Procedure
…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,…