A plaintiff sues the defendant for breach of contract in federal district court. After a jury trial, the jury finds in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals, arguing that the jury’s finding was unsupported by the evidence presented at trial. On appellate review, what standard will the court most likely apply to the jury’s factual findings?
The appellate court will determine whether the jury’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the trial record.
The appellate court will assess whether the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the applicable law.
The appellate court will reweigh the evidence and reach its own conclusion about the facts.
The appellate court will review the jury’s findings for clear error in their factual determinations.
When reviewing factual findings made by a jury, an appellate court applies the 'substantial evidence' standard. Under this standard, the appellate court will uphold a jury’s findings if there is evidence in the record that a reasonable jury could have relied upon to reach its conclusion. This high level of deference is based on the principle that juries are entitled to evaluate the credibility of evidence and witnesses firsthand. In contrast, findings by a judge in a bench trial are reviewed under the 'clearly erroneous' standard, which reflects a different level of deference.
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 meant by the 'substantial evidence' standard in appellate review?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the 'clear error' standard differ from the 'substantial evidence' standard?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What implications does appealing based on jury findings have on the judicial process?