Standard of Review By Appellate Courts Hearing Appeals On the Record

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

V. Standard of review by appellate courts hearing appeals on the record

A law review article, by Professor Amy E. Sloan, titled Appellate Fruit Salad and Other Concepts: A Short Course in Appellate Process, 35 U. Balt. L. Rev. 45 (2005), explains the three standards that appellate courts employ when reviewing a case on appeal. Professor Sloan wrote:

Appellate courts generally apply one of three standards of review: de novo, clearly erroneous, or abuse of discretion. De novo review gives no deference to the decision below, allowing the appellate court to reevaluate an issue on its own. It applies primarily to questions of law. Two reasons are usually advanced for this searching degree of review. First, a trial court may have to make decisions quickly, in the heat of trial, whereas the appellate court can take as much time as it needs to consider and resolve the issue. Second, one of the functions of appellate courts is to clarify ambiguities in the law or even make new legal rules when necessary, and appellate decisions have precedential value affecting the resolution of future cases. Giving appellate courts plenary review of questions of law is consistent with this function.
Clearly erroneous is the standard applied to review of questions of fact decided by the judge. This is a more

...