NCJ Number
118787
Journal
South Dakota Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 3 Dated: (1987-1988) Pages: 468-483
Date Published
1988
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article introduces the words and phrases encountered in standards-of-review opinions to establish a basic understanding of the phrases and the direction in which they should lead the reviewer.
Abstract
A standard of review prescribes the degree of deference given by the reviewing court to the actions or decisions under review and describes the authority of the reviewing court to determine the severity of error in the decision of the lower court or agency and whether that error reaches a reversible level. This article provides a chart that serves as a basic guide to standards of review. The lefthand side of the chart lists types of decisionmakers: jury, agency, judge, master, and magistrate. The top of the chart specifies the decision type under type of proceedings. Types of proceedings are civil, criminal, administration (formal proceeding), and administrative (informal proceedings). Types of decisions are law, fact (also mixed law/fact), and discretionary decisions. The applicable standard of review is indicated at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical applicable listings. The standards are de novo review, clearly erroneous review (not for agency decisions), reasonableness review, arbitrary-and-capricious review, abuse-of-discretion review, and no review. The article explains the various standards. 72 footnotes.