A plaintiff sues a defendant in federal court for breach of contract. At trial, the jury concludes the contract existed, and the defendant breached it. The defendant later appeals, arguing that the jury's finding on the existence of the contract was clearly erroneous based on the evidence presented. On appeal, how will the reviewing court evaluate the jury's finding?
The appellate court will review the jury’s finding de novo.
The appellate court will reweigh the evidence and decide if the jury reached the correct conclusion.
The appellate court will review the jury’s finding under the clearly erroneous standard.
The appellate court will determine whether the jury’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The appellate court's role in reviewing a jury's factual findings is limited to determining whether such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable jury could have relied on to reach its conclusion. The clearly erroneous standard is used when a trial judge's findings of fact (not a jury's) are being reviewed. Legal conclusions, on the other hand, are reviewed de novo, which allows the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the lower court.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is substantial evidence in the context of an appeal?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does the clearly erroneous standard entail for trial judges' findings?