Section 1.18 Findings of Fact, Murphy v. Carron, and the Clearly Erroneous Standard

• Library: App Ct Prac 2015 Supp

c. (§1.18) Findings of Fact, Murphy v. Carron, and the Clearly Erroneous Standard

A trial court’s factual findings, like its discretionary rulings, are given significant deference by the appellate court. Although the state and federal courts use different phrases to govern their standards of review, the result in either forum is that it is difficult to successfully challenge a trial court’s findings of fact on appeal.

Appellate court review of a trial court’s findings of fact in Missouri is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976), and Rule 84.13(d), which provides:

(d) Appellate review in cases tried without a jury or with an advisory jury.

(1) The court shall review the case upon both the law and the evidence as in suits of an equitable nature;

(2) The court shall give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to have judged the credibility of witnesses;

(3) The court shall consider admissible evidence that was rejected by the trial court and preserved. The court may order that proffered evidence that was rejected by the trial court and not preserved be taken by the deposition or by reference to a master under Rule 68.03 and returned to the appellate court.

Appellate review of a federal district court’s findings of fact is governed by Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, which states, in part:

(a) Effect. In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon, and judgment shall be entered pursuant to Rule 58; and in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions the court shall similarly set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Requests for findings are not necessary for purposes of review. Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. The findings of a master, to the extent that the court adopts them, shall be considered as the findings of the court. It will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence or appear in an opinion or memorandum of decision filed by the court. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on...