the court process?

Question

What appellate consideration should be given to the factual basis of the litigation elicited in the trial of the case?

Answer 1

Appeals courts generally are not concerned with facts presented at trial level. For the most part they deal with whether law was followed and error was made. The only time they consider facts is when there are NEW facts to be presented in evidence and whether they rise to the level of warranting a new trial. The appellate court does not rule on the validity or merits of the new evidence other than to make a determination that had the facts been presented at trial, the outcome might have been different.

Answer 2

Appellate courts generally review a trial court's findings of fact under an "abuse of discretion" or "clear error" standard of review. That means that they do not themselves reweigh facts, but see if the district court clearly erred in finding a fact -- that is, that no reasonable person could find the way the trial court did. This allows an appeallate court to correct a clearly erroneous finding (like all the evidence showed that the plaintiff died in 1998 but the Court said she died in 1988 and measured damages from that date), but does not allow appellate courts to sit in the shoes of the trial court (because the trial court was there, more involved with the case, maybe actually heard testimony, and being removed from the facts, are less able to judge credibility).

Answer 3

stop talking nonsense