enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Standard of review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_review

    Additionally, in some areas of substantive law, such as when a court is reviewing a First Amendment issue, an appellate court will use a standard of review called "independent review." [citation needed] The standard is somewhere in between de novo review and clearly erroneous review. Under independent review, an appellate court will reexamine ...

  3. Appellate procedure in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_procedure_in_the...

    "Appellate review" is the general term for the process by which courts with appellate jurisdiction take jurisdiction of matters decided by lower courts. It is distinguished from judicial review , which refers to the court's overriding constitutional or statutory right to determine if a legislative act or administrative decision is defective for ...

  4. Rational basis review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

    Rational basis review is not a genuine effort to determine the legislature's actual reasons for enacting a statute, nor to inquire into whether a statute does in fact further a legitimate end of government. A court applying rational basis review will virtually always uphold a challenged law unless every conceivable justification for it is a ...

  5. 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Antonin ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_term_United_States...

    Though the statutory standard for appellate review of sentences was structured to check compliance with the Guidelines, the Court found that once compliance was no longer mandatory that provision for review was severed and a different standard of reviewing for "unreasonableness" could be implied.

  6. Daubert standard - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), [1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision ...

  7. Anders v. California - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_v._California

    The Supreme Court ruled that any such motion must be accompanied by a brief (commonly referred to as an Anders brief) outlining the case and any potential (albeit possibly frivolous) grounds for appeal, that the appellate court must independently review the case, and that a defendant must be allowed the right to appeal either pro se or by other ...

  8. Appellate court - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_court

    Appellate courts nationwide can operate under varying rules. [3] Under its standard of review, an appellate court decides the extent of the deference it would give to the lower court's decision, based on whether the appeal were one of fact or of law. In reviewing an issue of fact, an appellate court ordinarily gives deference to the trial court ...

  9. Category:Appellate review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Appellate_review

    The appellate review category refers to both the scope and the standards of review given by an appellate court Subcategories. This category has the following 2 ...