Also known as: clearly erroneous · clearly erroneous standard · clear error standard of review · clear error standard · clearly erroneous review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A deferential standard of appellate review that bars a court from setting aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The standard requires the appellate court to give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility. It applies to factual determinations made after a bench trial or on pretrial motions presenting questions of fact.
Caleb Chang sued his former employer for unpaid overtime after a bench trial. The district judge credited the employer's time records over Chang's testimony based on demeanor and consistency. On appeal Chang argued the judge should have believed him instead. The appellate court affirmed because the credibility finding was not clearly erroneous.
After a guilty plea the district court found that the defendant had distributed a particular quantity of drugs based on witness testimony at the sentencing hearing. The defendant appealed arguing the quantity finding lacked support. The court of appeals reviewed the finding for clear error and affirmed because the record contained evidence the trial judge could credit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Village officials denied a rezoning request for affordable housing. The district court found no discriminatory purpose after weighing statements by decision makers and the sequence of events. Plaintiffs appealed claiming the finding was wrong. The appellate court upheld the finding under the clearly erroneous standard because the trial judge had observed the witnesses and the record permitted the conclusion.
A state prisoner sought habeas relief claiming counsel failed to investigate mitigating evidence. The state court found that counsel's choices were strategic after hearing testimony at an evidentiary hearing. On federal habeas the prisoner challenged that finding. The federal court applied clear-error review and deferred to the state court's credibility assessment of counsel's explanation.
South Carolina challenged the coverage formula under the Voting Rights Act. The district court made findings about the history of voting discrimination based on legislative records and expert testimony. South Carolina appealed those findings. The Supreme Court reviewed them for clear error and accepted the district court's factual determinations.
A magazine published an article that a manufacturer claimed was false. After a bench trial the district court found no actual malice based on the reporter's testimony about research methods. The manufacturer appealed. The appellate court affirmed because the credibility finding was not clearly erroneous under the governing standard.
The standard applies to findings of fact made by a judge after a bench trial or on pretrial motions that present factual questions such as personal jurisdiction or amount in controversy. It does not apply to pure questions of law or to mixed questions that are primarily legal.
Supporting sources
No. A party may question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings on appeal whether or not it requested findings, objected to them, or moved to amend them. The rule expressly preserves that right.
Supporting sources
The standard gives special deference to credibility findings because the trial judge observes demeanor, tone, and manner of answering. An appellate court may not reweigh which witness it finds more persuasive when the evidence could support either view.
Supporting sources
The court must state the findings and conclusions that support its action. A one-line order granting a TRO without any findings or conclusions violates this requirement and may require vacatur.
Supporting sources
…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," and neither Rudzewicz nor the Court of Appeals has pointed to record evidence that would support a "definite and firm conviction" that the District Court's findings are mistaken. United…