TCT.3.4.050 Standard of Review

The Court of Appeals shall apply the following standards of review:

(a) A finding of fact by a judge shall be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.

(b) A factual inference drawn by a judge shall be reviewed as a finding of fact as long as more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts.

(d) Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

(e) A stipulated, uncontested, or documentary fact is reviewed as a conclusion of law.

(f) The meaning of an unambiguous contract is reviewed as a conclusion of law.

(g) A mixed issue of fact and law is reviewed according to the appropriate standard for each part.

(h) Whether a finding of fact or a conclusion of law has been properly labeled as such by the Tribal Court is reviewed as a conclusion of law.

(i) A discretionary determination shall be sustained if the record reflects that the Tribal Court exercised discretion and applied the appropriate legal standard to the admissible facts of record.

(j) Sentencing and the imposition of fines, forfeitures and other penalties or remedial measures, not including the assessment of damages, shall be reviewed as a discretionary determination.

(k) The Court of Appeals shall not substitute its judgment for that of the Tribal Court on a matter committed to the discretion of the Tribal Court.

(Res. No. 07-72.)

Prior Codifications

§TCT.3.4.050 was formerly codified as LCOTCC §2.13

Commentary

The standard of review defines the relationship between the trial court and the appeals court. The standard of review seeks to allocate to each court that part of the judicial work which it can best do. The trial court is in the best position to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility and is therefore sustained on such matters unless its findings are clearly erroneous. The trial court is in no better position to interpret the law than the appeals court; in fact, the appeals court has the luxury of being able to analyze the law away from the heat of trial and can better perform this task itself. The appeals court can therefore look at questions of law afresh and need not defer at all to the trial court. Discretionary questions by their nature can result in different decisions when put to different decision makers. The function of the appeals court in reviewing a discretionary decision is not to decide the result it would choose, but to determine whether the trial court in fact exercised discretion and made a decision based on the applicable facts and law. The exercise of discretion is more than bald decision-making and it is the task of the appeals court to see that the appropriate process was followed.

Specific instances of common standard of review problems are listed in this section; for instance the definition of sentencing as a discretionary determination. These instances are not exclusive. The Tribal Governing Board may provide by ordinance and the courts by decision the classification of other matters as factual, legal, or discretionary.