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...