Also known as: clearly erroneous standard · clearly erroneous review · clear error rule · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review that bars a reviewing court from setting aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the appellate court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The standard requires the reviewing court to give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses who testified live.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carmen Choi sued Cardinal Insurance after a disputed claim denial. At the bench trial two witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the policy application process. The judge credited the insurer's witness based on demeanor and entered judgment for Cardinal. On appeal Choi argued the judge should have believed her version instead. The appellate court affirmed because the finding rested on a permissible credibility assessment and was not clearly erroneous.
Clifford Cox sued Crown Pharmaceuticals claiming a product warning was inadequate. After a bench trial the judge found the warning sufficient based on expert testimony about industry practice. Cox appealed arguing the adequacy determination was a legal question subject to de novo review. The appellate court applied clear-error review because the finding turned on historical facts about what the label said and how it was read.
Colin Chambers sued Crestview Holdings alleging the company had blocked a claimed easement across its land. At trial the judge found no easement existed after weighing testimony from surveyors and long-time residents. Chambers appealed claiming the evidence compelled a different result. The appellate court upheld the finding because the record supported the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses and documents.
Christopher Collins challenged his conviction on habeas claiming counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alibi. The state court found counsel's performance adequate after a hearing. On federal review Collins argued the state finding deserved no deference. The federal court applied the clearly erroneous standard to the historical facts about counsel's investigation and upheld the state determination.
Caleb Chang sued state officials claiming a literacy test violated federal law. After a bench trial the district judge found the test had been applied discriminatorily. The state appealed arguing the finding lacked support. The appellate court reviewed the finding for clear error and affirmed because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record contained ample evidence of unequal administration.
Camila Cervantes sued Cobalt Energy alleging she was passed over for promotion because of sex. At the bench trial the judge found the company's stated reason pretextual after hearing testimony from managers and reviewing performance records. Cobalt appealed. The appellate court affirmed because the credibility-based finding was not clearly erroneous even though the record could have supported a contrary conclusion.
The appellate court reviews factual findings only for clear error. A finding is clearly erroneous only when the reviewing court is left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made after examining the entire record. The court must give special deference to the trial judge's credibility determinations based on live testimony.
Supporting sources
…The plaintiffs appeal. Speaking for the majority of the Court, we conclude that both rulings of the Court of Chancery are clearly erroneous. Therefore, we reverse and direct that judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant directors for the fair value of the plaintiffs' stockholdings in Trans Union,…
…See also 7 Record 648-649. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires that "[f]indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous
…claim are subject to the deference requirement of § 2254(d), and although district court findings are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of Federal
…conduct challenged at the outset of the litigation, and the District Court's particular findings, which were never challenged as clearly erroneous, see Motion to Dismiss or Affirm in Coit v. Green , O. T. 1971, No. 71-425, p. 13, amply distinguish the Coit case from respondents' lawsuit. Thus, we need not consider whether standing…
…U.S. 31, 39; Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v. James , 272 U.S. 701. The commissioner's findings of fact are not disturbed unless clearly erroneous. La Bourgogne , 144 Fed. 781, 783, aff'd, 210 U.S. 95; Anderson v. Alaska S.S. Co. , 22 F. (2d) 532, 535. [^maj-15]: See Admiralty
Yes. A party may later question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings whether or not it requested findings, objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partial findings. The rules expressly preserve this right for bench trials.
Supporting sources
Yes. The standard still applies and the appellate court must defer to the trial judge's choice between two permissible views of the evidence. The judge's opportunity to observe demeanor gives the credibility determination particular force even when the experts are equally credentialed.
Supporting sources
The appellate court may conclude that the findings fail to satisfy the requirement of special findings and remand for further findings or a new trial. A bare conclusion that a party failed to carry its burden does not allow review under the clearly erroneous standard.
Supporting sources