skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 118787 Find in a Library
Title: Basic Guide to Standards of Judicial Review
Journal: South Dakota Law Review  Volume:33  Issue:3  Dated:(1987-1988)  Pages:468-483
Author(s): M S Davis
Date Published: 1988
Page Count: 16
Type: Guideline
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article introduces the words and phrases encountered in standards-of-review opinions to establish a basic understanding of the phrases and the direction in which they should lead the reviewer.
Abstract: A standard of review prescribes the degree of deference given by the reviewing court to the actions or decisions under review and describes the authority of the reviewing court to determine the severity of error in the decision of the lower court or agency and whether that error reaches a reversible level. This article provides a chart that serves as a basic guide to standards of review. The lefthand side of the chart lists types of decisionmakers: jury, agency, judge, master, and magistrate. The top of the chart specifies the decision type under type of proceedings. Types of proceedings are civil, criminal, administration (formal proceeding), and administrative (informal proceedings). Types of decisions are law, fact (also mixed law/fact), and discretionary decisions. The applicable standard of review is indicated at the intersection of the horizontal and vertical applicable listings. The standards are de novo review, clearly erroneous review (not for agency decisions), reasonableness review, arbitrary-and-capricious review, abuse-of-discretion review, and no review. The article explains the various standards. 72 footnotes.
Main Term(s): Judicial review
Index Term(s): Appeal procedures; Judicial decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.