Clearly Erroneous Review: Summary Judgment

The clearly erroneous standard of review is a deferential standard used by appellate courts to review factual findings made by a lower court. Under this standard, an appellate court will not overturn a lower court's ruling unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

This standard is typically applied during appeals involving the factual determinations that occur in summary judgment rulings, specifically when reviewing lower court findings that largely rely on testimonial evidence or credibility assessments. It is important to note that the standard does not apply to the legal conclusions drawn from those facts.

• The credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented.
• The presence of conflicting evidence or varying interpretations of the same evidence.
• The trial court's unique position to assess the demeanor and credibility of witnesses.

• Ensure that all factual evidence is clearly presented and well-documented in the summary judgment motion.
• Be prepared to address and counter any opposing party's claims about the credibility of evidence.
• Utilize affidavits and depositions effectively to bolster the factual record.

The clearly erroneous standard is more deferential compared to the de novo review, which allows appellate courts to reconsider all aspects of the case with fresh eyes. In contrast, under a de novo review, legal conclusions are reconsidered without any deference to the lower court's findings.