Appellate Practice
Abuse of Discretion
A deferential appellate standard used when reviewing many trial-management and discretionary decisions.
Plain-English definition
Abuse of discretion means the appellate court will not reverse just because it might have ruled differently. The appellant must show the lower court made a serious judgment error, applied the wrong legal standard, relied on clearly erroneous facts, or reached an unreasonable result.
How it works
This standard commonly applies to discovery rulings, evidentiary calls, extensions, sanctions, injunction balancing, and many case-management decisions.
Why it matters
A deferential standard makes appeals harder. Many rulings survive because the trial judge had a range of acceptable choices.
Related terms
More in Appellate Practice
Affirm
An appellate court's confirmation that the lower court's decision was correct and should stand.
Amicus Curiae
Latin: 'friend of the court.' A non-party who files a brief offering perspective or expertise on a legal question before the court.
Certiorari
A discretionary appellate review, especially the U.S. Supreme Court's review of decisions from lower courts.
Clear Error
A deferential standard for reviewing factual findings, reversed only when the appellate court is firmly convinced a mistake was made.
De Novo Review
An appellate standard where the reviewing court gives no deference to the lower court’s legal conclusion.
Dictum
A statement in a court opinion that is not necessary to the holding and therefore not binding precedent.
En Banc
French: 'on the bench.' A hearing or rehearing before all the judges of an appellate court rather than the usual three-judge panel.
Final Judgment Rule
The principle that appeals usually wait until the trial court has entered a final decision resolving the whole case.
Not legal advice. Definitions are for general reference. Consult an attorney before relying on any term in a real case.