Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Under de novo review, the appellate court acts as if it were considering the question for the first time, giving no deference to the decision below. This standard applies to a lower court's findings on questions of law. This is sometimes referred to as "plenary review" or the "legal error" standard.
Prior to 2015, should a court dismiss a case at summary judgment, the claim construction was subject to de novo review. [3] After 2015, appeals are subject to the hybrid "clear error" standard. [18] However, studies are still to premature to determine whether reversal rates will remain as high as they have under a de novo review standard. [18]
The United States legal system generally recognizes two types of appeals: a trial "de novo" or an appeal on the record. A trial de novo is usually available for review of informal proceedings conducted by some minor judicial tribunals in proceedings that do not provide all the procedural attributes of a formal judicial trial. If unchallenged ...
An appellate court may also review the lower judge's discretionary decisions, such as whether the judge properly granted a new trial or disallowed evidence. The lower court's decision is only changed in cases of an "abuse of discretion". This standard tends to be even more deferential than the "clear error" standard.
Judge Mayer, joined by Judge Newman, dissented asserting that the majority endorsed the problematic idea that claim construction is a matter of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Mayer argued that claim construction is similar to an obviousness determination, which is considered a factual finding (and thus subject to a "clear error" standard for ...
There were two circuit-split issues presented in Monasky v. Taglieri: 1) whether the standard on appeal is the highly deferential “clear error” review (if habitual residence is seen as a truly and only a factual question) or “de novo” (if it is really a mixed question of law and fact, or otherwise an issue of “ultimate fact”); and,
The case originated in the Southern District of New York, where Sandoz sued to invalidate Teva's patent on a drug for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.In the Markman hearing, Sandoz argued that a claim was fatally indefinite for failing to identify which of three possible meanings a particular claim term, related to the molecular weight of a component of the drug, should be interpreted to have.
De novo review would unify precedent and provide clearer guidance for police. [6] The Court held that probable cause determinations for warrantless searches should be reviewed de novo, but also that "an appeals court should give due weight to a trial court's finding that the officer was credible and the inference was reasonable."