References: 470 US 564 (1985), 53 USLW 4314, [1985] USSC 57, 105 SCt 1504, 84 L Ed 2d 518
Links: USSC
Ratio: United States Supreme Court – The court explained some considerations for the deference to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by a lower court: ‘The rationale for deference to the original finder of fact is not limited to the superiority of the trial judge’s position to make determinations of credibility. The trial judge’s major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise. Duplication of the trial judge’s efforts in the court of appeals would very likely contribute only negligibly to the accuracy of fact determination at a huge cost in diversion of judicial resources. In addition, the parties to a case on appeal have already been forced to concentrate their energies and resources on persuading the trial judge that their account of the facts is the correct one: requiring them to persuade three more judges at the appellate level is requiring too much. As the court has stated in a different context, the trial on the merits should be ‘the ‘main event’ . . rather than a ‘tryout on the road.’ . . For these reasons, review of factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard – with its deference to the trier of fact – is the rule, not the exception.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland) SC (Bailii, [2013] UKSC 58, [2013] 1 WLR 2477, [2013] WLR(D) 323, 2013 GWD 25-471, 2013 SLT 1212, WLRD, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2012/0112, SC Summary, SC)
The parties were father and son, living at first in the US. On the son’s wife becoming seriously ill, the son returned to Scotland. The father advanced a substantal sum for the purchase of a property to live in, but the son put the properties in his . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 03-Aug-16
Ref: 540458
