when can the factual findings of a lower court be reversed
Standard of review


administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a bench trial, that finding will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" by that court. For example, if a court finds, based on the testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a one-pound rock over 20 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the lower court
17214639
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.


when water is transferred from one navigable water, unaltered, into another navigable water body. However, because neither the district nor the Government raised the "unitary waters" approach before the Eleventh Circuit or in their briefs respecting certiori and because some factual issues remained unresolved, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to resolve the unitary waters argument and the case was remanded to the lower court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in part, finding that the NRDC was entitled to summary judgment on its claims regarding the Los
9771006
William Francis Melchert-Dinkel


on to hold, however, that speech which actually assisted a suicide was not protected. Since the trial court made factual findings only with respect to encouraging and advising, the supreme court reversed the conviction. It remanded, the case, however, for the lower court to determine whether Melchert-Dinkel had actually assisted the suicides within the meaning of the statute. On October 15, 2014, Rice County District Judge Thomas Neuville sentenced William Melchert-Dinkel to 3 years in prison, but suspended that sentence if Melchert-Dinkel
13297001
Burt v. Titlow


The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit arguing that the Appellate Court had not applied the doubly differential standard. Under this standard federal courts must give credit to the State Court's factual findings so long as it was reasonable. Alito makes the point that where there is a record the defendant adamantly asserted her innocence; therefore on its face the plea withdrawal was reasonable. In addition, there is no factual record on how long Toca took to prepare for Titlow's case, therefore the court cannot jump to the conclusion that just because
16973843
Appellate jurisdiction


of fact, an appellate court ordinarily gives deference to the trial court's findings. It is the duty of trial judges or juries to find facts, view the evidence firsthand, and observe witness testimony. When reviewing lower decisions on an issue of fact, courts of appeal generally look for clear error. The appellate court reviews issues of law de novo (anew, no deference) and may reverse or modify the lower court's decision if the appellate court believes the lower court misapplied the facts or the law. An appellate
729601
Inventive step and non-obviousness


of a patent claim is a question of law rather than a question of fact, i.e. it must be decided by a judge rather than by a jury. Nevertheless , the Court commented that "the section 103 condition (obviousness) "lends itself to several basic factual inquiries." This was a dramatic reversal of 150 years of precedent history that treated the questions of patent validity as questions of fact. Nevertheless Graham's language left ambiguity "whether the Court meant to indicate that obviousness is a factual conclusion drawn from evidentiary findings
10701500
Hollingsworth v. Perry


Professor NeJaime's assessment. Barry McDonald, a constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, believed that Walker's strict handling of the case and meticulous evidence gathering would "make it more difficult for appellate courts to overturn this court's ruling." "Only a trial court [like Walker's] can make factual findings," lawyer Brian DeVine said in an analysis. He further noted that "a Court of Appeal must give great deference to the factual findings of the trial court", and praised Walker "for carefully and
15202882
Supreme Court of Russia


a Supreme Court of Federal Subject comes to the Supreme Court it is observed by one of the judges of the Supreme Court. He may either submit it to respective Board or decline to do it if he finds decision of a lower court "lawful and well-grounded" (common legal expression in Russian courts). The Supreme Court may either affirm or reverse the decision of a lower court. If it is reversed the Supreme Court either renders its own resolution or provides that the case is to be reheard in lower courts
13338536
Inventive step and non-obviousness


or a legal conclusion based on factual inquiries." Subsequently, lower courts clarified this issue: although the determinations relating to the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between prior art and the patented object, and the level of skill in the relevant art are factual in nature (and left to a jury), the ultimate conclusion of obviousness is one of law (decided by a judge)... A finding of obviousness under section 103 therefore constitutes a finding that a group of individuals were capable of making the
10701501
Appellate jurisdiction


Appellate jurisdiction is the power of an appellate court to review, amend and overrule decisions of a trial court or other lower tribunal. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right. Depending on the type of case and the decision below, appellate review primarily consists of: an entirely new hearing (a non "trial de novo"); a hearing where the appellate court gives deference to factual findings of the lower court; or review of particular legal rulings
729599
Appellate procedure in the United States


Under this standard, the appellate court gives deference to the lower court's view of the evidence, and reverses its decision only if it were a clear abuse of discretion. This is usually defined as a decision outside the bounds of reasonableness. On the other hand, the appellate court normally gives less deference to a lower court's decision on issues of law, and may reverse if it finds that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard. In some cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the
28927
Joanna Toch


subjected to domestic violence. The Court of Appeal accepted Toch had not been allowed to put the mother's case because of numerous interventions by the Judge and the Judge had acted unfairly. This case is precedent for when a higher court will intervene to change the factual decisions of a lower court in family case. In 2016 Toch set up Familylawcafe.co.uk to troubleshoot and strategise family law issues, find the right experts for those with a family law problem and mentor those going through the legal process, calling upon her years working in family
4134988
True threat


the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of the context of Watts' statement - and the laughter that it received
3020707
Threat


to get in my sights is L.B.J." Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts. In reviewing the lower court's analysis of the case, the Court noted that "a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech." The Court recognized that "uninhibited, robust, and wideopen" political debate can at times be characterized by "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials." In light of
9715935
Sharon Keller


Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, and the conviction became final. In 1997, the semen found in Ogg was subjected to newly-available DNA testing; it was not Criner's. Criner filed a habeas corpus petition for a new trial, advancing two arguments: an "actual innocence" claim based on the new DNA evidence, and a "Brady" claim. The following year, the district court declined to make factual findings on the actual innocence claim, but recommended Criner receive a new trial on the basis of the
9042393
Quebec Court of Appeal


. In 1974 it was officially renamed the Quebec Court of Appeal. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec and the Criminal Code, someone wishing to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Quebec generally has 30 days to file an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Civil cases usually must have at least $50,000 in dispute to be heard. The Court of Appeal will overrule a lower court decision if it is "incorrect" on a question of law or "patently unreasonable" on an important factual finding. The
19093587
Utah v. Lafferty


District Court for Utah upheld the conviction, however the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower courts and reversed the conviction, finding that the state and the lower court judge had committed error in finding Ron competent to proceed. The state of Utah filed an appeal with the United States Supreme Court which was turned down. Ron was remanded to the Fourth District Court for Utah for competency proceedings, was found incompetent and was sent to the Utah State Hospital for treatment. Three years later, Ron was found by a court to
11362817
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n


year later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the actions of the association did not constitute 'state action'. The United States Supreme Court granted "certiorari" of the case to review this question. Before any questions of First Amendment law could be decided, the Court had to first determine whether TSSAA was a state entity and so whether the First Amendment applied. The Court issued a divided decision, splitting 5-4 in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit and finding the
20180618
Courts-martial of the United States


the appropriate service Court of Criminal Appeals. In cases where the sentence is not sufficiently severe, there is no right to appeallate review. The four service Courts of Criminal Appeals are: The service courts of criminal appeals have the power to reverse convictions that are either legally or factually insufficient, and to reduce sentences that they deem to be inappropriately severe. The power to determine factual sufficiency is a unique power for an appellate court to possess, and in exercising that authority the courts of criminal appeals may separately weigh the evidence,
6970579
Polygraph


review also warns against generalization from these findings to justify the use of polygraphs—"polygraph accuracy for screening purposes is almost certainly lower than what can be achieved by specific-incident polygraph tests in the field"—and notes some examinees may be able to take countermeasures to produce deceptive results. In the 1998 US Supreme Court case "United States v. Scheffer", the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable" and "Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the
21086291
Appellate procedure in the United States


the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it. It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect. In some cases, an appellate court may review a lower court
28915
The Corner House (organisation)


On 30 July of the same year, this decision was unanimously reversed by the House of Lords. They overruled both the factual and principled basis of the High Court's decision. As a matter of principle, they ruled the courts could only declare the decision unlawful if it was outside of the Director's power, not merely unreasonable. Factually, they held that his decision was in any case reasonable. Judgements: Corner House (High Court): "R. (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of
19880702
Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp.


reversing the Second Circuit and reinstating the judgment of the district court. After explaining the factual setting, the Court said: "Whether the transportation package described is a patentable invention we need not determine. For even if it is, no relief can be granted." The Court cited "Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co." for the proposition that a patentee "may not exact as the condition of a license that unpatented materials used in connection with the invention shall be purchased only from the licensor, and
18534383
Robert Corn-Revere


three-judge panel overturned the lower courts' ruling. When the appeal was heard en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals they reversed their earlier ruling and upheld the trial court's finding. In 2010, Corn-Revere served as local counsel for the successful legal defense of adult film producer John Stagliano. In 2012, Corn-Revere was lead counsel in Barnes v. Zaccari, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that a student in a state university has a right to due process
8116604
Philippine habeas corpus cases


President Ferdinand Marcos suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the entire country. Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for the release of several arrested persons. The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was proper for having factual and legal basis clearly provided forth by the government. But the Supreme Court, reversing the Barcelon and Montenegro cases, declared that the Judiciary has the authority to inquire into the factual basis of such suspension, and
11658314
Plea


In the U.S. federal system, the court must also satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the guilty plea. However, this safeguard may not be very effective, because the parties, having reached a plea agreement, may be reluctant to reveal any information that could disturb the agreement. When a plea agreement has been made, the judge's factual basis inquiry is usually perfunctory, and the standard for finding that the plea is factually based is very low. Other special pleas used in criminal cases include the plea of
4899533
Reverse domain hijacking


its express recognition in the UDRP, reverse domain name hijacking findings are rare and based heavily on the factual circumstances surrounding each case. Circumstances which have been cited by WIPO panels as justification for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking includes: Examples of such findings include the following WIPO cases: "Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.org" (2013), "Webpass, Inc. v. Paul Breitenbach" (2010), "Urban Logic, Inc. v. Urban Logic, Peter Holland" (2009), "David Robinson v. Brendan" (
11808183
Henry Marshall Furman


legislation is defeated. From its earliest opinions, the Court expressed a determination to avoid formalism and decide cases according to the factual merits. In "George v. State,", Judge Doyle had stated the policy of the Court: When a defendant is clearly, proven to be guilty, this court will not reverse a conviction upon any technicality or exception which did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. Under Judge Furman's leadership, the Court firmly established the doctrines of substantial justice and harmless error by interpreting a handful
13700074
Cambridge University Press v. Patton


of its opinion. The 11th Circuit reversed the grant of attorney's fees, and closely examined Judge Evans' 300-plus page fair use decision in their own 129-page decision. They affirmed the lower court's holdings on the first factor, finding that the course reserves were not transformative, but that nonprofit educational uses are favored under fair use. They reversed the lower court on the second fair use factor, requiring a closer examination of the original works and the relative composition of original analysis data. However, they noted that this factor
21986381
Marshall Cogan


to substantial offsets against his obligation to repay the loans he had received from Trace. In 2005, the decision of the District Court was reversed on appeal on the basis that the judge had improperly failed to submit the case to a jury. However, by then, Mr. Cogan had settled the case as to himself. Putting aside the correctness of the factual determinations made by the District Court, including the hotly disputed question of when Trace had entered the zone of insolvency, in 2007, the Supreme Court of Delaware, the
4321134
Lumbee


, William Chavers from Robeson County was arrested and charged as a free person of color for carrying a shotgun without a license. Chavers, like Locklear, was convicted. Chavers promptly appealed, arguing that the law restricted only "free Negroes," not "persons of color from Indian blood." The appeals court reversed the lower court, finding that "free persons of color may be, then, for all we can see, persons colored by Indian blood". A yellow fever epidemic in 1862–1863 killed many slaves working
6940085
Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece


principles of the procedure, then it can order the rehearing of the case by the lower court. It examines only legal and not factual issues and it is the highest degree of judicial resort. The court consists of the president and the attorney-general, ten vice-presidents, sixty five "areopagites" and seventeen deputy attorneys-general. The members of the Supreme Court enjoy functional and personal independence, as do all members of the judiciary, and are members for life, but they are required by law to retire
630662
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey


: The trial judge initially determined, at a pretrial conference, that the JAG Report was sufficiently trustworthy to be admissible, but due to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C) that it "would be admissible only on its factual findings and would not be admissible insofar as any opinions or conclusions are concerned." The day before trial, however, the court reversed itself and ruled, over the plaintiffs' objection, that some of the conclusions would be admitted. Five or six months after the accident, plaintiff John Rainey, husband
12594919
Capital punishment in the United States


typical legal appeal. An appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether the decision was legally sound or not. Direct review of a capital sentencing hearing will result in one of three outcomes. If the appellate court finds that no significant legal errors occurred in the capital sentencing hearing, the appellate court will affirm the judgment, or let the sentence stand. If the appellate court finds that significant legal errors did occur, then it will reverse the judgment
19518893
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan


, though by no means universally accepted, educational theory that single-sex education affords unique benefits to students. Stating that the case presented no issue of fact, the court informed Hogan that it would enter summary judgment dismissing his claim unless he tendered a factual issue. When Hogan offered no further evidence, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that because the admissions policy discriminated on the basis of sex, a rational relationship test was improper,
20948782
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal


the facts or that the factual conclusions reached by the Immigration Judge are wrong. He can only seek reconsideration if the Immigration Judge has misdirected himself in law, failed to consider relevant material, considered irrelevant material, or erred in his fact-finding to the extent that the findings are irrational and therefore amount to an error of law. If permission is refused on the papers, the party may renew his application for an order for reconsideration to the High Court or Court of Session. Again, the time limits are short.
19930112
Thomas Penfield Jackson


after the verdict but during the appeal that granted the appeal. Judge Jackson's order that Microsoft be divided into two companies, one owning the Windows operating system and the other owning Microsoft's various application software products, including the Internet Explorer web browser, was also reversed on appeal. Eight of his factual findings about Microsoft's monopolistic practices against the Sherman Antitrust Act, however, were upheld, though cut down based on the June 2001 appeal. During the appellate hearing, Harry Edwards, chief judge of the U.S. Court of
3280446
Overqualification


, when a choice is made to reduce the level of responsibility and one could consider the perceived overqualification as "added value" to the company when the applicant is willing to take a lower-level position, accompanied by a lower salary. When the decision is not based upon factual or unbiased factors, discrimination has occurred. In the United States, the term "overqualified" has been found by the courts to sometimes be used as a "code word for too old" (i.e., age discrimination) in the hiring
3742031
Vacco v. Quill


determining its constitutionality, it did not treat all competent patients equally when they were near death and wished to end their lives. To this effect, the Appeals Court said that, for example, a patient attached to a life support device was allowed to require its removal, while a person under identical circumstances could not demand that a doctor administer drugs to ensure the patient's death. It agreed with the contention that removing life support devices was identical to requesting physician-assisted euthanasia, and thereby reversed the lower court's finding
6543084
MV Geysir


granted a summary judgement for Rainbow, finding the new bidding system illegal. This judgement held for nearly two years, but was ultimately overturned on 24 August 1990, when a panel of Judges Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Douglas H. Ginsburg and David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Washington D.C. Circuit, reversed the lower court's decision. In addition to the almost non-stop succession of challenges related to the contracts on the U.S.–Iceland run, "Rainbow Hope" was involved in a few notable operational incidents. The most
9273032
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District


decision, the Supreme Court reached the same issue, but reversed on the merits, finding that if it provided an interpreter the school district would not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held only that the Establishment Clause does not bar the school district from furnishing an interpreter in a parochial school. Lower federal courts will now have to determine whether the Zobrests are entitled to reimbursement for the interpreter's expenses. In arguing its case before the lower courts, the school district raised other defenses in addition to the Establishment Clause bar.
11569844
Water in California


When in 1926 the Court went so far as to find that riparian owners did not need to put their water to beneficial use, the People amended the California Constitution to reverse the decision, establishing that no water in the state may be wasted. While riparian rights are superior to appropriative rights and may survive dormant and unused, in 1979 the California Supreme Court found that the California State Water Resources Control Board has the power to assign unused riparian rights lower priority than existing prior appropriations. "The appropriation doctrine confers upon one who
17179692
Remand (court procedure)


of a state supreme court or a Federal appeals court, it may remand the case. Likewise, an appeals court may remand a case to a trial court. A remand may be a full remand, essentially ordering an entirely new trial; when an appellate court grants a full remand, the lower court's decision is "reversed and remanded." Alternatively, it may be "with instructions" specifying, for example, that the lower court must use a different legal standard when considering facts already entered at trial. A
21519271
Thomas Finneran


Retirement Board decision to the Boston Municipal Court where a judge reversed the Board's decision, concluding that Finneran's conviction did not bear "a direct factual link to his position as a House Member and/or Speaker[.]" On April 5, 2017, the Supreme Judicial Court reversed that decision and reinstated the decision of the Retirement Board, holding that "[s]imply put, it is only because he had been Speaker of the House at the relevant time that he was in a position to testify as to the genesis of
15172922
United States v. Wunderlich


set aside the factual determination made by the Secretary of Interior, holding it to be arbitrary, capricious, and grossly erroneous, even if a provision of the contract made his decision final and conclusive upon the parties thereto. In an opinion authored by Justice Minton, the Court reversed 6-3, holding: Justice Douglas, with the concurrence of Justice Reed, dissented, arguing that the Court of Claims should be allowed to reverse an official where his conduct is plainly out of bounds, whether he is fraudulent, perverse,
12326031
Herbalife Nutrition


On December 3, 2013, a Belgian appeals court found for Herbalife, reversing the lower court's finding. On May 1, 2012, a well-known short seller David Einhorn asked pointed questions about the company's business and sales models during the Q1 earnings call, setting off suspicions that Einhorn had a short position. These suspicions were proved correct in January 2013 when at an investor meeting Einhorn revealed that he had profited through a short position against the company. Einhorn said the short had been closed before the end of
345137
Fettering of discretion in Singapore administrative law


Court went on to find that the PSA had in fact made its own decision in the matter. In "Komoco Motors", the Court of Appeal held that the Registrar of Vehicles had not abdicated to the Customs her discretionary power. Expressing the view of the Court, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong held that the "Lines International" conditions "although correct in law, [were] inapplicable to the factual context of the appeal". The Court distinguished the factual context in "Lines International" from the present case on
14623360
Commercial speech


Court of Ohio", , which established the Zauderer standard to judge which such government-mandated speech does not violate First Amendment rights of the commercial speaker. "Zauderer" found that the government can mandate commercial speech to include "purely factual and uncontroversial information" when it is reasonably related to the government's interest and "to dissipate the possibility of consumer confusion or deception". The Zauderer standard has since been expanded within Circuit Court case law to extend beyond protecting consumer deception as to include factual information for consumer awareness,
10722139
Araguaia Guerrilla War


the Federal Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision of the lower court, and returned the case to the same judge for finding of fact and a ruling on the merits. On March 24, 1994, the Federal Government filed requests for clarification against the Federal Court's ruling. The appeal was not heard by the Court, based on a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals itself on March 12, 1996. The Government lodged a special appeal against this decision, which was also ruled inadmissible by the Court of Appeals
7482113
Commission on Elections (Philippines)


paid for the plane tickets and hotel accommodations for the trip. However, Abalos claimed that the expenses for the trip were paid for out of the P1 million he won in a golf tournament in Wack Wack. On September 27, 2006, the Ombudsman, in a resolution, absolved all respondents involved in the Mega Pacific controversy of all administrative and criminal liabilities "for lack of probable cause." It also reversed its June 28 resolution which contained factual findings that can be used by the House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings
4060983
Precedent


reasoning, or reverse on the basis of precedent. On the other hand, if the losing party does not appeal (typically because of the cost of the appeal), the lower court decision may remain in effect, at least as to the individual parties. Occasionally, a lower court judge explicitly states personal disagreement with the judgment he or she has rendered, but that he or she is required to do so by binding precedent. Note that inferior courts cannot evade binding precedent of superior courts, but a court can
3273697
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.


He would have utilized rational basis review, instead of making new factual findings at trial and then using those findings to determine the validity of the legislation. He worried that the Court’s ruling basically forced Iowa to bow to the policy choices of neighboring states, when the power to make such interstate regulations is vested in Congress by the Constitution. He further argued that the court was reading too much into the motives of the legislature in enacting the statute. Rehnquist further argues that it was error to portray Iowa's statute as protectionist
10682798
Bowers v. Hardwick


was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where it was dismissed, with the Court ruling in favor of Bowers. Hardwick appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court, finding that the Georgia sodomy statute was indeed an infringement upon Hardwick's Constitutional rights. The State of Georgia then appealed, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on November 4, 1985, to review the case. Hardwick was represented before the Supreme Court by
3560735
Pamela Greenwood


. In response to this new evidence, Judge Pamela Greenwood wrote in a conclusion of the court's decision, "Because we determine that Miller's petition presents a 'bona fide issue as to whether (he) is factually innocent of the charges of which (he) was convicted,' we reverse and remand for a hearing to determine Miller's factual innocence." On June 13, 1995, the six children of a divorced woman, referred to as S.K., were removed from her home after allegations of physical abuse
1352240
Interviewer effect


interviewers. Furthermore, the race of the interviewer can also affect answers to factual questions that might take the form of a test of how informed the respondent is. Black respondents in a survey of political knowledge, for example, get fewer correct answers to factual questions about politics when interviewed by white interviewers than when interviewed by black interviewers. This is consistent with the research literature on stereotype threat, which finds diminished test performance of potentially stigmatised groups when the interviewer or test supervisor is from a perceived higher status group. Interviewer effects
21602955
Patchak v. Zinke


of Iran; and (4) owned only by Iran. Relying on "Klein", Bank Markazi argued § 8772 violated Article III by “effectively dictat[ing] specific factual findings in connection with a specific litigation—invading the province of the courts.” The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court upheld § 8772 on the logic that Congress “does not impinge on judicial power when it directs courts to apply a new legal standard to undisputed facts." Here, the statute “provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran
10626015
Fundamental error


these rules may not infringe upon federal fundamental rights. Any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose. A fundamental error is a type of legal or judicial error. A judicial error is a mistake by a judge or court. If a majority of a reviewing court, such as an appellate court, finds an error or errors which impacts the result, the higher court "may" reverse the lower court's error in whole or in part (the entire
3443389
With God, all things are possible


enjoined the state from citing its source. The state carried out the installation within days. On April 25, 2000, a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, finding that "the words have no secular purpose and appear to be a government endorsement of the Christian religion". However, the Council on American–Islamic Relations disputed this finding, citing verse of the Quran, while the World Vaisnava Association objected on the basis of Hindu scriptures. By this time, there was significant public
5880662
Supreme Court of Russia


of Russia; challenging of delegated legislation of governmental agencies; termination of political parties and all-Russian NGOs; challenging of actions of Central Electoral Commission of Russia when organizing presidential elections, State Duma elections or referendum. The Supreme Court may also hear criminal cases against members of the Federation Council of Russia and the State Duma and federal judges by their discretion. The Supreme Court is also the court of last resort for cases heard in lower courts since it reviews decisions of lower courts. When petition requesting reverse of a decision of
13338535
Pleading (United States)


naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement". In "Twombly" and "Iqbal", the U.S. Supreme Court sought to clarify the deceptively simple mandate of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which states that a "pleading that states a claim for relief must contain...a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitle to relief[.]" The Court interpreted Rule 8(a)(2) in "Twombly" to mean that a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to allow a district court to find
6606584
Jury


that could be supported by jury findings of fact even if the specific factual basis for the verdict is not known are entitled to great deference on appeal. In other legal systems, it is generally possible for an appellate court to reconsider both findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the trial court, and in those systems, evidence may be presented to appellate courts in what amounts to a trial de novo (new trial) of appealed findings of fact. The finality of trial court findings of fact in legal systems based
1128311
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.


complete at the time of the purchase order, and therefore could not have been "on sale" yet. The District Court for the Northern District of Texas upheld Pfaff's patent, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding the patent invalid because the invention was "substantially complete" at the time of the sale. Pfaff then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that lower courts had offered different opinions on the question of whether an invention could be "on sale" within the meaning
13094801
Vizconde murders


This was categorically denied by the Supreme Court as Justice Carpio had in fact recused himself from the case and was not going to take part in the deliberation. On December 14, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the earlier judgment of the lower court and Court of Appeals and acquitted seven of the nine accused, including Hubert Webb, finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court put to question the quality of the testamentary evidence furnished by the witnesses. No acquittal has been
16135984
Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey


The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the Rule 803(8)(C) issue. In the Court's holding, the Court stated: "We hold, therefore, that portions of investigatory reports otherwise admissible under Rule 803(8)(C) are not inadmissible merely because they state a conclusion or opinion. As long as the conclusion is based on a factual investigation and satisfies the Rule's trustworthiness requirement, it should be admissible along with other portions of the report." The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that the District
12594925
United States v. 50 Acres of Land


property. The court concluded that "a complete factual record should be developed from which an independent determination of the appropriate measure of compensation can be made." At trial, both parties submitted evidence on the fair market value of the condemned property and on the cost of the substitute landfill facility. Responding to special interrogatories, the jury found that the fair market value of the condemned property was $225,000, and that the reasonable cost of a substitute facility was $723,624.01. The District Court entered judgment for the lower amount plus
20599190
California Public Records Act


trial court orders are reviewable on their merits. Thus, when a trial court order under the CPRA is reviewed by an appellate court, the independent review standard is employed for legal issues and factual findings made by the trial court will be upheld if they are based on substantial evidence. On November 2, 2004, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 59. Commonly called the Sunshine Amendment, it added Article I, Section 3(b) to the California Constitution, which reads in part: In 2013, as part of budget negotiations,
5813290
Supreme Court of Thailand


Supreme Court occurs when the court allows plaintiff and respondent to present the factual and legal issues from their sides in the trial. This process can take from a few months to the expiry of the case, depending on the decision the senior judges of the case made as appropriate. Afterward, a draft of judgment or order is released. The examination process by the Research Division or approval process by a certain specialized division can then take place. This process can take up to a month. The procedure ends with the transmission of
2213284
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.


the Circuit Court of Appeals." Next, because of public policy, the Court rejected the Third Circuit's condonation of Hartford's fraud on the grounds of Hazel's failure to exercise sufficient diligence: Third, the Court challenged the Third Circuit's argument that the fraudulent conduct was not "basic’ to the 1932 decision and the factual allegations in the article were actually true. Hartford persuaded the court of appeals to reverse the district court's judgment on the basis of the article, and is therefore estopped from claiming it was
3129597
Burks v. United States


the Double Jeopardy Clause posed no bar to retrying a defendant, who, like Burks, had unsuccessfully moved the trial court for a judgment of acquittal and, alternatively, a new trial, but whose conviction was reversed for insufficiency of the evidence by an appellate court. But five years later, in "Sapir v. United States," the Supreme Court issued a single-paragraph per curiam opinion, vacating a Court of Appeals' order that directed a new trial under similar factual circumstances as in "Bryan." The Court
8521226
Court of Cassation (France)


a point of law, and may only allow the appeal in cases of serious error; fresh evidence is not admissible. The typical outcome of a successful appeal is setting aside of the lower court's decision and remittal for reconsideration. An intermediate appellate court, the Cour d'appel, hears general appeals "de novo" on points of law and procedure as well as errors of fact and reasoning. The Court of Cassation only decides matters of points of law or procedure on the record, as opposed to factual errors. Lower courts
4518097
Person having ordinary skill in the art


defined. The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on how the lower court defined the capabilities of a PHOSITA. "KSR v. Teleflex" was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on April 30, 2007. Importantly, Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion stated, "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Although the Court's opinion acknowledged other Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as having "common sense" and who could find
19888284
Legal history of income tax in the United States


in fact income." The Court had held, however, that the stock dividend was the equivalent of income. The Supreme Court in "Towne v. Eisner" then reversed the lower court, finding that the dividend was not income because the "proportional interest of each shareholder remains the same ... and the stockholder is no richer than they were before." As a result, the Court decided in "Eisner v. Macomber" to address the larger constitutional question of whether or not a stock dividend was gross income within the meaning
17684541
2018 Ole Miss Rebels football team


, including a 2-year post-season ban. As Ole Miss already self-imposed a post-season ban during the 2017 season, 2018 will be the last season without post-season play due to the sanctions. On February 5, 2018, the university submitted a written appeal to the NCAA regarding the penalties, stating: “This Committee should vacate and reverse the penalties and factual findings, because the COI (Committee of Infractions) abused its discretion, departed from precedent, committed procedural errors, and reached factual conclusions
14405632
International child abduction in Mexico


a special Constitutional appeal process (the "amparo"), which can block Convention proceedings almost indefinitely. Delays are also due to the ability of Mexican appellate courts to reconsider factual determinations made by a lower court. These case delays could be dealt with through the passage of implementing legislation incorporating Convention procedures and obligations, something that the Department of State has urged Mexico to do; we have seen no steps taken in this direction. In addition, Mexico's record on enforcement of judicial orders for return is mixed. Although some
3744667
Dusky v. United States


the Supreme Court, the petitioner requested for his conviction to be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court decided to grant the writ of certiorari. The court ruled that to be competent to stand trial the defendant must have a "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and a "rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." The court made clear that a
15544414
Shapiro, Bernstein and Co. v. H.L. Green Co.


a record concessionaire (Jalen Amusement Company, Inc.), which allegedly infringed Shapiro's copyrights by selling bootleg copies, and the chain store in which the record concessionaire was based (H. L. Green Company) which allegedly engaged in contributory infringement of those copyrights by virtue of its business relationship with the record concessionaire. The lower court concluded, based on factual findings as to H.L. Green's business relationship with Jalen, that as a matter of law no contributory infringement could have occurred, and dismissed the complaint as to Green. Shapiro
18544168
Whistleblower protection in the United States


firing. Each new employer action can be used to justify a new grievance. When an employee grievance prevails, the lower level supervisors that were involved in the dispute may be temporarily prohibited from promotion. Manager pay may be suspended in situations where there was a whistleblower reprisal or other crime. This provides a manager incentive not to use unethical tactics to prevail. The employee should ensure the nature of the dispute is factual, justified, and substantiated. Factual means no false or misleading statements. Justified means that there must be legal
4891129
DVD Copy Control Ass'n, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.


by some to be an important recent test of fair use precedent, since it circles the question of whether a consumer who has legally purchased a DVD can copy or backup that DVD to whatever end the consumer desires. DVD CCA filed its opening brief in December 2007, appealing the lower court decision to the 6th District Court of Appeal. In August 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court decision, ruling that the "CSS General Specifications" were a part of the contract. The Court of Appeal did not decide
15817157
Uttecht v. Brown


's trunk. He was sentenced to death in a Washington State Court. After his conviction was affirmed by state courts, Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, in which he argued in part that the state trial judge had improperly dismissed a juror without finding that the juror's views on capital punishment would impair his ability to follow the law. The district denied his petition and Brown appealed. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling and upheld Brown's objections as
16592859
United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals


and specifications. Unless reversed by a higher court, such action is binding on all parties, including all officials of the United States. The court's published opinions are binding precedent for the conduct of courts-martial in the Army. The Courts of Criminal Appeals review cases for legal error, factual sufficiency, and sentence appropriateness. All other cases are subject to review by judge advocates under regulations issued by each service. After such review, the Judge Advocate General may refer a case to the appropriate Court of Criminal Appeals.
5438919
Commerce Clause


the Justices would come to different conclusions. Throughout the 20th century, in a variety of contexts, courts sought to avoid second guessing the legislative branch, and Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be seen as a part of this trend. Lawrence Tribe states: Since 1937, in applying the factual test in "Jones & Laughlin" to hold a broad range of activities sufficiently related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has exercised little independent judgment, choosing instead to defer to the expressed or implied findings of Congress to the effect that regulated
2053114
Precedent fact errors in Singapore law


court will exercise judicial review, regardless of whether the error is jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional in nature. "Since the law/fact boundary becomes indistinct, this fudges the conceptual moorings of judicial review as confined to scrutinising legal error. An intrusive review of factual findings threatens to turn review into appeal." Occasionally, the distinction between errors of law and errors of fact can be fuzzy. Where a public authority is alleged to have committed an error of mixed fact and law, the High Court is more likely to leave
2522351
Kentucky v. King


eleven years in prison. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that exigent circumstances supporting the warrantless search were not of the police's making and that police did not engage in deliberate and intentional conduct to evade the warrant requirement. In January 2010, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the lower court order, finding that the entry was improper. They reserved the issue of whether what the officers heard was sufficient to establish exigent circumstances. Even assuming exigent circumstances did exist, though, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that (
11985575
Sherbert v. Verner


a state trial court and the South Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision reversed the Commission and the lower courts, finding that, as applied, the government's denial of Sherbert's claim was an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her religion. The majority opinion effectively created the "Sherbert" Test, determining whether government action runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. Brennan, writing for the majority, stated that denial of Sherbert's unemployment claim represented a substantial burden upon her. Even
13288151
Cherokee freedmen controversy


a counter lawsuit against the Cherokee Nation in U.S. District Court in Tulsa, Oklahoma seeking to stop the denial of tribal citizenship and other rights to the Freedmen. The Freedmen filed counterclaims against certain Cherokee Nation Officers and the Cherokee Nation with cross-claims against the Federal Defendants. On October 18, 2012 the Vann case was heard by the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On December 14, 2012, the court reversed the initial finding of the lower court, stating "The Ex parte Young doctrine
19195641
Common law


what the law is. Chief Justice Roberts noted the "great disconnect between the academy and the profession." When common law courts rely on scholarly work, it is almost always only for factual findings, policy justification, or the history and evolution of the law, but the court's legal conclusion is reached through analysis of relevant statutes and common law, seldom scholarly commentary. In contrast, in civil law jurisdictions, courts give the writings of law professors significant weight, partly because civil law decisions traditionally were very brief,
5058960
Twiqbal


by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in "Twombly" illustrates the two-pronged approach. The effect of these two decisions has been described as "incredibly consequential" and "controversial
5496842
Cariou v. Prince


Prince's position, and to the photographic community, which largely favored Cariou's position. In April 2013, the Second Circuit reversed the SDNY's decision, finding that most of Prince's works were indeed "transformative" to a "reasonable observer" and therefore fair use. In particular, the Court found that the lower court erred in requiring that the appropriating artist claim to be commenting on the original work, and found works to be transformative if they presented a new aesthetic. The court found 25 of 30 works to
14972315
Judicial functions of the House of Lords


that no decree of the lower Scottish courts could be executed while an appeal was pending; that rule was reversed only by the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1808, which provided that the lower Court could determine if the appeal justified the stay of the decree. In 1713, the House of Lords began to consider appeals from Scotland's highest criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary. In 1781, when deciding "Bywater v. Lord Advocate", the House recognised that prior to the Union, the High Court of
5484034
South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe


contended that such permits are not required when water from one navigable body is discharged, unaltered, into another navigable water. Nonetheless, because neither the District nor the Government raised the "unitary waters" approach before the Eleventh Circuit or in their briefs respecting certiori, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to resolve the argument here and the unitary waters argument was remanded to the lower court. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact but some factual issues remain
21516007
Competency evaluation (law)


aid in his own defense and to have a rational and factual understanding of the charges. In this case Dusky presented a petition of writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court requesting that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding. The court decided to grant the writ, based on a lack of recent evidence that the petitioner was competent at the time of the trial. The case was remanded to the district court for a new hearing to evaluate Dusky's competence
15544284
United States v. Antelope


reversed the murder convictions, ordering that they be tried under Idaho law. Chief Justice Warren Burger delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court. Burger stated that "Federal regulation of Indian tribes, therefore, is governance of once-sovereign political communities; it is not to be viewed as legislation of a “ ‘racial’ group consisting of ‘Indians' . . . .”" The Court did note that some lower courts had found Indian status without finding enrollment in a tribe being necessary, but did not address it since
8759864
Reverse discrimination


factor in denying Abigail Fisher's application, denying her a fair review. The lower courts upheld the program, but the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the lower courts and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit to review correctly. According to a report prepared in 1995 for the Labor Department of the United States by Alfred W. Blumrosen, affirmative action policies have caused few claims of reverse discrimination by whites. The report found fewer than 100 reverse-discrimination cases among more than 3,000 discrimination opinions by Federal district and appeals courts
468767
Upjohn Co. v. United States


at the direction of superiors. Some other federal courts adopted this view during the 1970s, with some maintaining the control group test and others adopting a hybrid of the two. In a unanimous 9-0 decision, Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion of the Court in which it reversed the Sixth Circuit's holding. The Supreme Court held that the communications of lower ranking employees were protected by attorney–client privilege when protection was necessary to defend against litigation. The Court also reversed and remanded the tax summonses issue. Chief Justice
18815495
Janet Stumbo


paper called "her most criticized ruling", she found that, under a literal reading of Kentucky law, a litigant who had been injured in an automobile accident could not collect damages unless there was a court ruling that found the other driver in the accident to be negligent. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed this decision, saying Stumbo should have considered the legislature's intent. Stumbo also halted refund payments ordered by a lower court in a finding against Louisville Gas & Electric (LG&E) in a rate dispute, saying the court
15359209
Reverse doctrine of equivalents


Federal Circuit said, a factual investigation was needed to determine whether the Matsushita device's "structure is so far changed in principle that it performs the same or a similar function in a substantially different way," so that a trial of that issue was therefore required. This is not a legal question, the "en banc" "SRI" court insisted, and it disapproved the earlier statement of a Federal Circuit panel in "Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.", that non-infringement under the reverse doctrine of equivalents
20738570
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly


no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Our decision in "Twombly" illustrates the two-pronged approach. The two cases are often jointly referred to as "Twiqbal". The case was argued successfully by Michael K. Kellogg of law firm
1251075
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni


to induce them to make certain factual concessions which weakened Shankar's case. Shankar sought an order from the High Court to quash the Disciplinary Committee's decision finding him guilty of the charges. The issues before the Court were: The High Court found in favour of Shankar on the first and second issues, but not on the third issue due to insufficient evidence. The main ground of Shankar's judicial review application was apparent bias. Apparent bias occurs when there is an objective perception that an administrative or judicial body has decided,
22073630
Prognathism


arches relate to one another, including malocclusion (where the upper and lower teeth do not align). When there is maxillary or alveolar prognathism which causes an alignment of the maxillary incisors significantly anterior to the lower teeth, the condition is called an overjet. When the reverse is the case, and the lower jaw extends forward beyond the upper, the condition is referred to as retrognathia (reverse overjet). Not all alveolar prognathism is anomalous, and significant differences can be observed among different ethnic groups. Harmful habits such as
599334
Trial de novo


, particularly potent issues are brought before an appeals court, such as a constitutional determination made by a lower court, or summary judgment granted by a lower court. When this sort of issue is on appeal, the court of appeals will review the lower court decision "de novo" or from the beginning. In this process, the panel of judges for the court of appeals will review the lower court's reasoning and fact-finding from the beginning, based on the record. This is a high level of scrutiny that
10498921