General Standards of Review
“Things done well, And with a care, exempt themselves from fear.”King Henry VIII, I,2; King Henry
Know your standards of review. Cite them for each issue. The rules require it. The standard of review for questions of law is de novo upon the record. Findings of fact require a de novo review with a presumption of correctness, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise.
The standard changes with a jury trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court restated the standard that Tennessee’s courts apply when reviewing a jury’s finding of fact as follows:
In reviewing the sufficiency of a civil jury verdict, we will set aside findings of fact by a jury “only if there is no material evidence to support the verdict.” Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); see also Wilson v. Americare Sys., Inc., 397 S.W. 3d 552, 558 (Tenn. 2013). To determine whether there is such material evidence, we “(1) take the strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict; (2) assume the truth of all evidence that supports the verdict; (3) allow all reasonable inferences to sustain the verdict; and (4) discard all [countervailing] evidence.” Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W. 3d 363, 372 (Tenn. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W. 3d 698, 704 (Tenn. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)), abrogated by Gossett v Tractor Supply Co., 320 S.W. 3d 777 (Tenn. 2010). We do not re-weigh the evidence, Flax v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 272 S.W. 3d 521, 532 (Tenn. 2008), and do not recalibrate the jury’s preponderance of the evidence assessment, Barnes, 48 S.W.3d at 704.
Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State University, 451 S.W.3d 375, 380 (Tenn. 2014).
Credibility determinations involve another important standard of review: “The credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury, not appellate courts. See e.g., State v. Flake, 88 S.W. 3d 540, 554 (Tenn. 2002) (“Questions concerning the credibility of witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, as well as all factual disputes raised by the evidence, are for the trier of fact; appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or reevaluate credibility determinations.”); Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc., 887 S.W. 2d 822, 823 (Tenn. 1994). However, when evaluating deposition evidence, the appellate courts are equally as able to judge the witness’s credibility as the trial court.
Strict standards of review, like abuse of discretion, are challenging to overcome. To reverse a decision covered by an abuse of discretion standard, the court must determine that the trial court “applied incorrect legal standards, reached an illogical conclusion, based its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or employed reasoning that causes an injustice to the complaining party.” Discover Bank v. Morgan, 363 S.W.3d 479, 487 (Tenn. 2012). If you have a difficult standard of review, embrace the challenge by specifically showing how your case meets the high standard; don’t be lazy and just say the trial court “erred.”
