In the United States, trial decisions may be appealed when the losing side has issues with the trial court proceedings, the law that was applied, or how the law was applied. The appellant, or petitioner, must present the case for a second hearing in a higher court. The appellee/cross-appellant, or respondent, can then file a cross-appeal.
Appellate practice is a distinct section of the law, requiring specialized knowledge and procedures. Not all trial lawyers offer appellate practice services because of the different skills needed to present cases to appeals courts, whether that’s in seeking a second hearing for the appellant/cross-appellant or defending a previous judgment for the appellee/cross-appellant.
The Standards of Review in appellate cases were established to provide a framework upon which appeals courts base their decisions. These determine how much the appeals court will defer to the lower court’s judgment of the case, and what aspects of the ruling will be reviewed. An important job of an appellate attorney is to persuade the court to apply the standard most favorable to their client’s case.
The Standards of Review in Appeals
First is De Novo Review, which applies to questions of law. In these cases, the appellate court reviews the issue from scratch without deferring to the lower court’s conclusions. For example, in a contract dispute, the appellate court might determine the meaning of a specific contractual term without considering the lower court’s interpretation.
- In Michigan, a dispute over local ordinances regarding the operation of certain facilities was argued in Charter Township of Royal Oak v. Oakland Cares Coalition (Docket Number: 367522). The Court of Appeals conducted a de novo review of the case, analyzing the legal questions separately from trial court conclusions. It found that the trial court’s reliance on a local precedent was flawed, a result that highlights the importance of ensuring accurate legal interpretation.
Next is the Abuse of Discretion standard, which applies to the trial court’s decisions on the admissibility and exclusion of evidence. The appellate court gives the trial court a lot of deference in upholding its decisions on what testimony or documents come into evidence, unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious or otherwise unreasonable. For instance, if a trial judge excluded a piece of evidence, the appellate court will only overturn this decision if it was made in error, not just because the appellate judges would have ruled differently.
- This standard was applied in the case of People of MI v. Bobby Emmitt Kennedy (Docket Number: 363575), where the appellate court examined the trial court’s decision to exclude certain pieces of evidence and its handling of jury instructions. By applying the “abuse of discretion” standard, the Court of Appeals upheld most of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings but reversed a minor procedural error.
In that same case, the Clearly Erroneous standard was used to evaluate, and affirmed, factual findings regarding the defendant’s intent. This standard applies to factual determinations by the trial court. The appellate court will not overturn these findings unless there is a clear error. If a trial court found that a witness was credible and truthful based on their testimony, the appellate court would defer to this finding unless it is obviously incorrect.
The final standard is for Mixed Questions of Fact and Law, which is for issues that include both factual and legal components. The level of deference depends on whether the question leans more toward fact or law. For instance, in a medical malpractice case, determining whether a doctor’s actions met the standard of care involves both an assessment of facts and an interpretation of legal standards.
In Conclusion
Arguing an appellate case requires deep knowledge of complex procedures, and the choice of your legal representative can make all the difference in how these cases are approached and resolved.
The Michigan appellate attorneys at August Law have the analytical skills and experience to successfully communicate our clients’ perspectives and arguments to appellate courts, and are ready to work as a team with the original trial lawyers to maintain both a collaborative spirit and our own style of managing appeals. We are also excellent writers and superior oral advocates. We are also strong and successful trial lawyers, giving you the best chance of getting the results you want. Contact us to discuss your case.