Clear error standard of review New Norcia

38 CFR § 20.1403 Rule 1403. What constitutes clear and IV. REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISIONS A. Introduction 1. Arbitrary and Capricious The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) sets forth standards governing judicial review of decisions made by federal administrative agencies.

Definition of CLEAR ERROR Law Dictionary • TheLaw.com

Clear Error Law and Legal Definition USLegal Inc.. What is the Standard of Review on Appeal? One of the most important factors an appellate attorney considers in assessing the likelihood of success on appeal is the applicable standard of review. Standard of review is so important, in fact, that most appellate courts require a separate section on the standard of review that applies to the issues being briefed., Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post..

3/6/2005 · Addressing for the first time the standard of review for findings of substantial similarity in copyright cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit followed the majority of circuits in adopting a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States Intellectual Property McDermott Will & Emery 3 Jun 2005 PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's …

Litigants are often tempted to address the merits of a legal issue, without reference to the applicable appellate standard of review. However, litigators should first identify and alert the presiding court to the applicable standard of review because it defines the scope of the appellate court’s inquiry, the level of deference to be paid to the lower tribunal’s ruling,1 and controls the Click Clear data. Learn how to change more cookie settings in Chrome. For example, you can delete cookies for a specific site. In other browsers. If you use Safari, Firefox, or another browser, check its support site for instructions. What happens after you clear this info. After you clear cache and cookies: Some settings on sites get deleted.

SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAYS: CLEAR ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO COURT REVIEW OF WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY ARBITRATOR’S CBA INTERPRETATION. Click to share this page Click for PDF Click to print this page. Seyfarth Synopsis: cuss the standard of review applicable to common issues that arise on appeal in civil cases. B. Different Standards of Review The de novo standard of review gov-erns purely legal rulings. Under the de novo standard, an appellate court will review the legal issue “anew; afresh; a second time.”1 Rulings that require fact-finding generally use

However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v. standard of review, you can shape your argument to п¬Ѓt the standard.7 The result will be a more effective argu-ment and a better chance of winning.8 The opposite is also true: if you get the standard of review wrong, or ignore it completely, you undermine your argument.

Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post. Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crime(s) that he or she is accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The actual innocence standard may be invoked at any time, and not only in criminal proceedings but also in immigration and other civil proceedings.

OF THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A DENIAL OF A FRANKS HEARING INTRODUCTION The authorities knock on a door of a residence. When the door opens, the officers show a search warrant to search the premises. During the search, the officers seize several pieces of evidence. Litigants are often tempted to address the merits of a legal issue, without reference to the applicable appellate standard of review. However, litigators should first identify and alert the presiding court to the applicable standard of review because it defines the scope of the appellate court’s inquiry, the level of deference to be paid to the lower tribunal’s ruling,1 and controls the

We hold that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review. Whether Upatcha established that her marriage was entered into in good faith under § 1186a(c)(4)(B) is a mixed question of fact and law, and the IJ’s ultimate conclusion that the credited evidence did not meet the good faith standard is a legal judgment subject to de novo review. There are four main standards of review: Under “de novo” review, an appellate court decides an appeal without any deference to the lower court’s decision. Review for “clear error” grants significant deference to the district court’s decision.

Circuit should review district courts’ underlying factual determinations during claim construction for “clear error” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), rather than using the de novo standard, which had been used to date. In support of its There are four main standards of review: Under “de novo” review, an appellate court decides an appeal without any deference to the lower court’s decision. Review for “clear error” grants significant deference to the district court’s decision.

However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v. (a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that

Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post. Based on this finding, the dissent continued, de novo review should be the standard of review for all aspects of a lower court’s patent claim construction, including factual determinations based upon any extrinsic evidence.

Supreme Court applies "clear error" review to claim

Clear Error Practical Law. However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v., It's not every day that a garden variety car accident case makes its way up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. So what does it take for a federal appeals court to overturn a negligence determination?.

Actual innocence Wikipedia

Raise Your Standards A Practitioner’s Guide to the. Click on the image above to receive the free eBook and other content not available on the blog. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code (a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that.

However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v. From De Novo to Clear Error: Don't Risk Your Standard of Review When Objecting to a Magistrate's Report attorneys know that failing to contemporaneously object to an adverse ruling can subject the issue to a more stringent standard of review on appeal. For example,

(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that Based on this finding, the dissent continued, de novo review should be the standard of review for all aspects of a lower court’s patent claim construction, including factual determinations based upon any extrinsic evidence.

Get the USLegal Last Will Combo Legacy Package and protect your family today! includes your Will, Power of Attorney, Living Will and more. Start Now! There are many different standards of review that an appellate court may use in different circumstances. When filing an appeal it is important to understand the importance of standards of review in the appellate process and how they can affect the chances of winning.. Sufficiency of the Evidence

OF THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A DENIAL OF A FRANKS HEARING INTRODUCTION The authorities knock on a door of a residence. When the door opens, the officers show a search warrant to search the premises. During the search, the officers seize several pieces of evidence. There are many different standards of review that an appellate court may use in different circumstances. When filing an appeal it is important to understand the importance of standards of review in the appellate process and how they can affect the chances of winning.. Sufficiency of the Evidence

It's not every day that a garden variety car accident case makes its way up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. So what does it take for a federal appeals court to overturn a negligence determination? Legal Disclaimer: The content appearing on our website is for general information purposes only. When you submit a question or make a comment on our site or in our law forum, you clearly imply that you are interested in receiving answers, opinions and responses from other people.

Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crime(s) that he or she is accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The actual innocence standard may be invoked at any time, and not only in criminal proceedings but also in immigration and other civil proceedings. standard of review, you can shape your argument to п¬Ѓt the standard.7 The result will be a more effective argu-ment and a better chance of winning.8 The opposite is also true: if you get the standard of review wrong, or ignore it completely, you undermine your argument.

Circuit should review district courts’ underlying factual determinations during claim construction for “clear error” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), rather than using the de novo standard, which had been used to date. In support of its PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's …

From De Novo to Clear Error: Don't Risk Your Standard of Review When Objecting to a Magistrate's Report APPELLATE & TRIAL SUPPORT LITIGATION AND TRIALS FEBRUARY 6, 2018 Most attorneys know that failing to contemporaneously object to an adverse ruling can subject the issue to a more stringent standard of review on appeal. Actual innocence is a special standard of review in legal cases to prove that a charged defendant did not commit the crime(s) that he or she is accused of, which is often applied by appellate courts to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The actual innocence standard may be invoked at any time, and not only in criminal proceedings but also in immigration and other civil proceedings.

(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that Having lost in a 2–1 decision, Merck then asked for a rehearing en banc to determine whether the “substantial evidence” standard of review was appropriate when the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s decision of obviousness arising from an IPR proceeding, or whether the less deferential “clear error” standard of review was warranted.

However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v. Litigants are often tempted to address the merits of a legal issue, without reference to the applicable appellate standard of review. However, litigators should first identify and alert the presiding court to the applicable standard of review because it defines the scope of the appellate court’s inquiry, the level of deference to be paid to the lower tribunal’s ruling,1 and controls the

It's not every day that a garden variety car accident case makes its way up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. So what does it take for a federal appeals court to overturn a negligence determination? What is the Standard of Review on Appeal? One of the most important factors an appellate attorney considers in assessing the likelihood of success on appeal is the applicable standard of review. Standard of review is so important, in fact, that most appellate courts require a separate section on the standard of review that applies to the issues being briefed.

Creative Inspire T6300, самая громкая на сегодняшний день система из серии Inspire, выводит объемное звучание 5.1 фильмов, игр и музыки на новый уровень за счет улучшенного звучания средних и низких Creative inspire t6300 5.1 speakers review New Norcia Logitech Z506 is a set of 5.1 speakers that is popular for personal computers as well as home theater Creative T6300 is coming with the Creative Dual Slot Enclosure down-firing subwoofer and five satellite speakers. As you can see, Creative T6300 does not have a dedicated center Energy Take Classic 5.1 Review: The Best 5.1-Channel Product;

8th Cir. Applies Clear Error Standard to Review Car

Supreme Court’s Decision in Teva Patent Lawyer Blog. 3/6/2005 · Addressing for the first time the standard of review for findings of substantial similarity in copyright cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit followed the majority of circuits in adopting a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States Intellectual Property McDermott Will & Emery 3 Jun 2005, Supreme Court Finds Determination of Insider Status Rests with the Bankruptcy Court and “Clear Error” is the Appropriate Standard of Review by Bradley Lehman By: Bradley P. Lehman, Esquire.

'Clear error' standard of review in factual disputes

97. The "Who What When Where Why and How" of Appeals. B. Freedom of Speech and Appellate Review . Fortunately, there's a well‑established solution to this problem. Harassing speech wouldn't be the first category of speech held to be unprotected by the Free Speech Clause. Fighting words, obscenity, and libel, for example, are also generally unprotected., Having lost in a 2–1 decision, Merck then asked for a rehearing en banc to determine whether the “substantial evidence” standard of review was appropriate when the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s decision of obviousness arising from an IPR proceeding, or whether the less deferential “clear error” standard of review was warranted..

Legal Disclaimer: The content appearing on our website is for general information purposes only. When you submit a question or make a comment on our site or in our law forum, you clearly imply that you are interested in receiving answers, opinions and responses from other people. Common Errors and Issues in Review 5 The reviewer is responsible for determining the scope of work for the review, but must carefully consider input from the client (if any) as well as what the reviewer’s peers’ scope of work would be in a similar

3/6/2005 · Addressing for the first time the standard of review for findings of substantial similarity in copyright cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit followed the majority of circuits in adopting a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States Intellectual Property McDermott Will & Emery 3 Jun 2005 PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's …

PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's … Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post.

OF THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A DENIAL OF A FRANKS HEARING INTRODUCTION The authorities knock on a door of a residence. When the door opens, the officers show a search warrant to search the premises. During the search, the officers seize several pieces of evidence. SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAYS: CLEAR ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO COURT REVIEW OF WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY ARBITRATOR’S CBA INTERPRETATION. Click to share this page Click for PDF Click to print this page. Seyfarth Synopsis:

3/6/2005 · Addressing for the first time the standard of review for findings of substantial similarity in copyright cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit followed the majority of circuits in adopting a clearly erroneous standard of review. United States Intellectual Property McDermott Will & Emery 3 Jun 2005 cuss the standard of review applicable to common issues that arise on appeal in civil cases. B. Different Standards of Review The de novo standard of review gov-erns purely legal rulings. Under the de novo standard, an appellate court will review the legal issue “anew; afresh; a second time.”1 Rulings that require fact-finding generally use

Fadwa Hammoud is the solicitor general of the state of Michigan, which joined an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner in June Medical Services v. Gee.. Many articles concerning June Medical Services v.Gee attempt to read the tea leaves regarding the future of abortion rights in light of the newer members of the Supreme Court, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. (a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that

The clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review of ultimate and subsidiary facts and therefore, a federal court of appeals is not free to adopt a standard of review other than the clearly erroneous standard merely because the result in a case turns on a factual finding. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for a drug company fighting generic competitors in a decision on the proper standard of review in patent infringement cases involving factual issues.

From De Novo to Clear Error: Don't Risk Your Standard of Review When Objecting to a Magistrate's Report attorneys know that failing to contemporaneously object to an adverse ruling can subject the issue to a more stringent standard of review on appeal. For example, There are many different standards of review that an appellate court may use in different circumstances. When filing an appeal it is important to understand the importance of standards of review in the appellate process and how they can affect the chances of winning.. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The clearly erroneous standard applies to appellate review of ultimate and subsidiary facts and therefore, a federal court of appeals is not free to adopt a standard of review other than the clearly erroneous standard merely because the result in a case turns on a factual finding. From De Novo to Clear Error: Don't Risk Your Standard of Review When Objecting to a Magistrate's Report APPELLATE & TRIAL SUPPORT LITIGATION AND TRIALS FEBRUARY 6, 2018 Most attorneys know that failing to contemporaneously object to an adverse ruling can subject the issue to a more stringent standard of review on appeal.

4/12/2017В В· Can Microsoft be told that this is a stupid way of doing it. e.g. There is a large solution with many projects, i build it and get a big list of errors that I am stuck with when I want to build one of the individual projects. However, how courts describe the appropriate standard of review to apply to such a situation are confusing. The correct standard requires that courts "break down" the matter and apply "the appropriate standard to each component." Meridian Bank v. Alten, 958 F.2d 1226, 1229 (3d Cir. 1992); accord Pullman-Standard v.

The BIA Clear Error Standard of Review of IJ’s Findings. What is the Standard of Review on Appeal? One of the most important factors an appellate attorney considers in assessing the likelihood of success on appeal is the applicable standard of review. Standard of review is so important, in fact, that most appellate courts require a separate section on the standard of review that applies to the issues being briefed., Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a . de novo, standard of review. Pp. 4–16. (a) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) states that a court of appeals “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous.” It sets out a “clear command,”.

Standards of Review Foster & Foster Attorneys at Law

Standards of Review Foster & Foster Attorneys at Law. Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post., PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's ….

Plain Error Rule--Clarifying Plain Error Analysis Under

Standard Error Definition. It's not every day that a garden variety car accident case makes its way up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. So what does it take for a federal appeals court to overturn a negligence determination? https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%87%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A1%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A6%BE:%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0_%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A8_%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A3%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0_%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE Based on this finding, the dissent continued, de novo review should be the standard of review for all aspects of a lower court’s patent claim construction, including factual determinations based upon any extrinsic evidence..

(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that Legal Disclaimer: The content appearing on our website is for general information purposes only. When you submit a question or make a comment on our site or in our law forum, you clearly imply that you are interested in receiving answers, opinions and responses from other people.

п»їGlossaryClear ErrorThe standard of review appellate courts typically use when reviewing a trial court's findings of fact. Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential. If the trial court'sAdditional content available upon purchase. OF THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A DENIAL OF A FRANKS HEARING INTRODUCTION The authorities knock on a door of a residence. When the door opens, the officers show a search warrant to search the premises. During the search, the officers seize several pieces of evidence.

dard of review of an immigration judge’s decision was de novo as to all issues. In 2002, the regulations were revised to provide for “clear error” review of an immigration judge’s findings of fact and de novo review of all other matters, including questions of law, judgment or … PLAIN ERROR RULE the court."14 The Rule did not explain or define the concepts of "plain error" or "affecting substantial rights," although the advisory committee's …

There are many different standards of review that an appellate court may use in different circumstances. When filing an appeal it is important to understand the importance of standards of review in the appellate process and how they can affect the chances of winning.. Sufficiency of the Evidence п»їGlossaryClear ErrorThe standard of review appellate courts typically use when reviewing a trial court's findings of fact. Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential. If the trial court'sAdditional content available upon purchase.

Earlier this week, in Teva v.Sandoz, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “factual underpinnings” of a district court’s claim construction decision must be reviewed by the Federal Circuit under the “clear error” standard of review (see our Mar. 31, 2014 post for the question presented). Many thanks to Clifford A. Katz and Beth D. Jacob who prepared this post. (a) General. Clear and unmistakable error is a very specific and rare kind of error. It is the kind of error, of fact or of law, that when called to the attention of

Supreme Court Finds Determination of Insider Status Rests with the Bankruptcy Court and “Clear Error” is the Appropriate Standard of Review by Bradley Lehman By: Bradley P. Lehman, Esquire Home > Appellate Practice > Appealing Evidentiary Rulings. Appealing Evidentiary Rulings By Jay O'Keeffe on September 30, 2009 Posted in Appellate Practice. As every trial lawyer knows, judges are human. They will, from time to time, make mistakes. Often those mistakes will manifest themselves as mistaken evidentiary rulings.

IV. REVIEW OF AGENCY DECISIONS A. Introduction 1. Arbitrary and Capricious The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) sets forth standards governing judicial review of decisions made by federal administrative agencies. Circuit should review district courts’ underlying factual determinations during claim construction for “clear error” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), rather than using the de novo standard, which had been used to date. In support of its

We hold that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review. Whether Upatcha established that her marriage was entered into in good faith under § 1186a(c)(4)(B) is a mixed question of fact and law, and the IJ’s ultimate conclusion that the credited evidence did not meet the good faith standard is a legal judgment subject to de novo review. 25/7/2013 · Bench Trials and the Standard of Review on Appeal. July 25, 2013. By Zachary D. McMillan. McMurry & Livingston, 429 (Ky. 1980). Accordingly, “[i]n the absence of clear error, the appellate court should not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court.” Wells v. Remember to Regularly Review Death Beneficiary

(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded. (b) Plain Error. A plain error that OF THE CLEAR ERROR STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR A DENIAL OF A FRANKS HEARING INTRODUCTION The authorities knock on a door of a residence. When the door opens, the officers show a search warrant to search the premises. During the search, the officers seize several pieces of evidence.

Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a . de novo, standard of review. Pp. 4–16. (a) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) states that a court of appeals “must not . . . set aside” a district court’s “[f]indings of fact” unless they are “clearly erroneous.” It sets out a “clear command,” SEVENTH CIRCUIT SAYS: CLEAR ERROR STANDARD APPLIES TO COURT REVIEW OF WITHDRAWAL LIABILITY ARBITRATOR’S CBA INTERPRETATION. Click to share this page Click for PDF Click to print this page. Seyfarth Synopsis:

What is the Standard of Review on Appeal? One of the most important factors an appellate attorney considers in assessing the likelihood of success on appeal is the applicable standard of review. Standard of review is so important, in fact, that most appellate courts require a separate section on the standard of review that applies to the issues being briefed. 25/7/2013 · Bench Trials and the Standard of Review on Appeal. July 25, 2013. By Zachary D. McMillan. McMurry & Livingston, 429 (Ky. 1980). Accordingly, “[i]n the absence of clear error, the appellate court should not substitute its opinion for that of the trial court.” Wells v. Remember to Regularly Review Death Beneficiary