【辭典】Standard of Review審查標準

【辭典】Standard of Review審查標準

審查標準分成："de nove" 、"clearly erroneous standard"、 "arbitrary and capricious standard"、以及"substantial evidence standard" reviews。

關於法律問題適用"de nove" reviews，上級法院完全不採用下級法院的判斷來進行審查；

另一方面，關於事實問題則適用"clearly erroneous standard" reviews， 僅有在法律程序、法律適用發生錯誤時，才推翻下級法院的判斷。至於怎麼的錯誤才適合"clearly erroneous standard" reviews呢？即有如下三種：(1)法律的錯誤解譯、(2)判決沒有受到substantial evidence（有意義的立証証據）的支持、(3) evidence重要度的判斷錯誤（即，並非substantial evidence的証據卻錯誤地採用而下了錯誤的判斷。有意義的立証証據）。

"arbitrary and capricious standard"係適用於agency（政府的外部機關）或下級法院之判斷的審理，在發生藉由恣意且不合理的行為任意地適用及無視法律或事實時，將其判斷推翻。

"substantial evidence standard" reviews使用於agency之決定的審查，且以係為substantial的立証証據為基礎，agency做決定時，法院必須支持其決定。因此，隨著採用什麼樣的審查原則，當上級法院推翻下級法院或agency的判決、決定時，此時的困難性就會跟著改變。

此篇為網路看到的文章，請參照ken的美國法律散步道路！

========================================================
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1252.pdf

A finding of inequitable conduct is committed to the trial judge's discretion and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "To overturn such a determination, the appellant must establish that the ruling is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or on a misapplication or misinterpretation of applicable law, or evidences a clear error of judgment on the part of the district court." Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Kingsdown Medical Consultants, 863 F.2d at 876. Findings of materiality and intent are factual findings subject to the clearly erroneous standard and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal unless this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.

CAFC 03-1333

While the ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion reviewed by this court without deference, that determination always entails various factual findings that this court reviews for clear error following a bench trial. See Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The clear error standard permits reversal only when this court is left with a "definite and firm conviction" that the district court was in error. Amhil Enters. Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

【八月十六日新增】 說明更多的審查標準
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1252.pdf
A finding of inequitable conduct is committed to the trial judge's discretion and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "To overturn such a determination, the appellant must establish that the ruling is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or on a misapplication or misinterpretation of applicable law, or evidences a clear error of judgment on the part of the district court." Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Kingsdown Medical Consultants, 863 F.2d at 876. Findings of materiality and intent are factual findings subject to the clearly erroneous standard and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal unless this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.