Judicial Mistakes

Questions of Fact
Arbitrary and Capricious
In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when
decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard. Arbitrary and capricious
is a legal ruling where in an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid
because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of
circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.
Substantial Evidence
A finding of fact made by a jury or an administrative agency in the context of APA
adjudication or formal rulemaking will be normally upheld on appeal unless it is
unsupported by "substantial evidence." This means something "more than a mere
scintilla" of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Under the "substantial evidence"
standard, appellate review extends to whether there is any relevant evidence in the
record which reasonably supports every material fact (that is, material in the sense of
establishing an essential element of a claim or defense). Appellate courts will not
reverse such findings of fact unless they have no reasonable basis in the evidence
submitted by the parties. In other words, they will not reverse unless no one submitted
any testimony, documentation, or other evidence which directly or indirectly (i.e.,
through reasonable inferences) supports a material fact, thereby implying that the finder
of fact must have engaged in impermissible speculation with no reasonable basis in
order to reach a verdict. If the parties presented conflicting evidence, appellate courts
applying a "substantial evidence" standard assume that the jury or administrative
agency resolved the conflict in favor of the prevailing party, and in turn, appellate courts
must defer to such implicit findings about which side's witnesses or documents were
more believable, even if they suspect they might have ruled differently if hearing the
evidence themselves in the first instance. This is a highly deferential standard.
Clearly Erroneous
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, where a trial court (as opposed to a jury or
administrative agency) makes a finding of fact, such as in a bench trial, that finding will
not be disturbed unless the appellate court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed" by that court. For example, if a court finds, based on the
testimony of a single eyewitness, that a defendant broke a window by throwing a onepound
rock over 20 feet, the appeals court might reverse that factual finding based on
uncontradicted expert testimony (also presented to the lower court) stating that such a
feat is impossible for most people. In such a case, the appeals court might find that,
although there was evidence to support the lower court's finding, the evidence taken as
a whole—including the eyewitness and the expert testimony—leaves the appellate court
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was committed by the Court below.
Page 52 of 166