Also known as: manifest wrong · clearly erroneous
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard of appellate review for factual findings that permits reversal only when the trial court's determination lacks any reasonable evidentiary basis or produces a definite and firm conviction of error.
After a bench trial, the district court credited an elderly neighbor's testimony over conflicting maps and records to find an easement existed. On appeal, Harborfront Holdings argued the finding should be overturned. The appellate court affirmed because the trial judge had observed the witness and the record supported the determination, so the finding was not manifestly wrong.
A physician challenged an interpretive rule limiting prescription of controlled substances. The district court upheld the rule after weighing statutory text and agency practice. On appeal, the physician contended the lower court's reading of legislative history was manifestly wrong, but the reviewing court found the factual premises supported by the record and affirmed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A probate court found that a testatrix's notebook entries qualified as a valid memorandum altering her will. An heir appealed, claiming the finding ignored contrary evidence of intent. The appellate court upheld the determination because the record contained sufficient supporting testimony and documents, rendering the finding not manifestly wrong.
A trial court ruled that a letter from the decedent expressed only future intent and denied probate as a codicil. The claimant appealed, asserting the factual finding was manifestly wrong in light of the letter's language and surrounding circumstances. The appellate court affirmed after determining the evidence reasonably supported the trial court's conclusion.
A circuit court modified custody after finding a material change in circumstances based on a parent's living arrangements. The other parent appealed, arguing the finding was manifestly wrong because no actual harm to the children had occurred. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the record supported the trial court's assessment of future risk.
The standard requires reversal only when the trial court's finding lacks any reasonable evidentiary support or leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. The reviewing court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to assess witness credibility.
Supporting sources
No. A party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings on appeal even if it never requested findings, objected to them, or moved to amend them in the trial court.
Supporting sources
A timely Rule 52(b) motion allows the trial court to correct or supplement findings within twenty-eight days of judgment. Denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the underlying findings remain subject to manifestly wrong review on appeal.
Supporting sources
Reversal is permitted only when the finding is unsupported by the record as a whole or when the trial court's choice of testimony is implausible in light of other evidence. Mere disagreement with the trial judge's weighing of conflicting testimony does not suffice.
Supporting sources
…In reviewing chancery cases, we consider the evidence de now, but will not reverse a chancellor’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. Jones , 326 Ark. 481, 931 S.W.2d 767 (1996). We give due deference to the superior position of the chancellor to view and…