STANDARD OF REVIEW
DE NOVO
The de novo standard of review means that the appellate court will give no deference to the initial ruling and will look at the case with a fresh set of eyes. This is the best odds an appellant would have as it takes away the disadvantage of losing in trial court. This standard is most commonly applied when the appellate court is questioning a law itself because the trial court strictly rules based on the laws that are in place. There are other situations when this standard would be used such as an appeal on a summary judgment. A summary judgment is a ruling made by a judge without conducting a full trial. Cases ending in summary judgment would have a de novo standard of review because a full trial was never conducted.
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
This standard is given during cases when the appeal is on the question of fact. This means that a successful appeal relies on the appellant’s ability to prove that a decision or finding in the trial court is false or based on an error. This standard does give substantial deference to the lower court meaning that the appellate court comes into the case with the idea that the lower court conducted the trial correctly and came to a reasonable verdict. It is up to the appellant to clearly prove this wrong with evidence.
REASONABLENESS/ SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
This standard is based on the jury in a trial. Because the 7th Amendment of the Constitution puts heavy constraints on the appellate court's ability to overturn a jury verdict, this standard is typically very difficult to prove. In order to succeed in appealing a case based on this standard, the appellant must prove that no rational person would come to the conclusion of the jury with the evidence that was presented. This standard can also apply to cases which use arbitration or outside agencies to come to a consensus.
ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS
This standard is strictly used to review the decisions of arbitrators or outside agencies that decided a dispute. While the substantial evidence standard reviews the evidence that was used to back a decision, the arbitrary and capricious standard reviews the justification of the decision from the agency.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
In a trial case a judge has to make certain decisions that require his or her discretion. However, there are still a set of factors and rules that ensures the judge uses his discretion reasonably. This standard of review is applied to show that a judge made an error with his or her discretion in trial. For a case to be overturned based on this standard the appellant must also prove that this error had an obvious impact on the outcome of the trial.