![]() ![]() The grant or denial of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Reviewed under abuse of discretion standard. 41(a)(2): Reviewed for abuse of discretion. Voluntary dismissal pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 2000).ĭismissal of pendent state law claims. Reviewed on abuse of discretion standard. Motion under Rule 19(b) (to dismiss when an indispensable party cannot be joined). Orders granting class certification are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Pretrial motions on the conduct of the litigation (such as motions to sever or consolidate) are reviewed for abuse of discretion. ![]() Grant or denial of preliminary injunction. 1999).ĭetermination that a case is not ripe. 2001).ĭenial of qualified or absolute immunity. 2001).ĭismissal of a complaint for lack of standing. The decision of the District Court is given “substantial deference.” Republic of Panama v. 1974).ĭismissal based on forum non conveniens. ![]() Questions of subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. The court accepts all allegations of the complaint as true and construes the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a claim. Findings of fact are upheld unless clearly erroneous. Conclusions of law receive de novo review. 2000).Ĭourts of appeal draw an important distinction between the review of factual issues and the review of legal issues. ![]() Under this standard, the court of appeals must affirm unless it determines that “the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied an incorrect legal standard.” Alexander v. Under this standard, an appellate court with “uphold any district court determination that falls within a permissible range of permissible conclusions.” Cooter & Gell v. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. The appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings unless it’s left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Inwood Laboratories, Inc. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. “Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. The court gives no deference to the lower court’s decision and applies the same standard as the district court. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuitįederal appellate courts typically apply one of the following four standards of review: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |