Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9459291" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So let me elaborate a little on why standards of review matter, why you always have them in the brief, and why the absence of them likely led to such bad arguments. An appellate court use a "standard of review" on appeal. In federal appeals, there are four standards (there are more, but these are the primary ones). 1. De Novo. The court gives no deference to the lower court’s decision and applies the same standard as the district court. 2. Clearly Erroneous.  The appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings unless it’s left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. This is a significantly deferential standard.3. Substantial Evidence. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.4. Abuse of Discretion. Under this standard, the court of appeals must affirm unless it determines that the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied an incorrect legal standard.Side note- conclusions of law are de novo, findings of fact are upheld unless clearly erroneous.Okay, why does all of this matter?If you are the appellant, you always want DE NOVO. That means the appeal court gets a fresh look, and is basically a do-over.On the other hand, the other standards? They put the thumb on the scale, and it means that even if the district court was wrong, the decision will be upheld unless it is super-duper wrong. So the standard for the dismissal of the torts (defamation x2, IIED, prima facie tort) are all DE NOVO, because they were dismissed for failure to state a claim. That's good! But that should have been hammered. As I have written, I have been incredibly skeptical of the IIED and PFT claims, but I can imagine prevailing on some small part of the defamation appeal- if argued well. Because all you need to to is point to any specific allegation in the second amended complaint that would allow the claim to survive! Of course, instead of pointing to the specific allegation and highlighting the standard, it's just a mess of policy arguments and rambling.On the other hand, service of process and leave to amend are abuse of discretion. Because of that standard, it's an uphill battle. And weirdly, the leave to amend argument doesn't even engage with the district court's opinion. And not only is the standard not stated for service of process, the brief never even makes the argument correctly.</blockquote>

Verification