Law, Fact, and Appellate Review

Authors

Adam N. Steinman, Texas A&M University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

11-2024

Journal Title

Iowa Law Review

ISSN

0021-0552

Abstract

For centuries, courts have been called upon to distinguish between law and fact. That distinction played a key role in recent Supreme Court decisions on two critical components of appellate review. Dupree v. Younger considered an important question regarding what a party must do at trial to preserve an issue for appellate review. And Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. addressed how to select and apply the standard of appellate review--specifically, whether and how the appellate court must show deference to particular decisions made at the trial level.
Both decisions were partially right. Dupree correctly focused on whether certain early rulings are unreviewable on appeal because they are "overcome" by proceedings at trial. Google properly recognized that an appellate court must defer to the jury as to underlying findings jurors may have made in reaching the ultimate verdict. But both decisions went awry in concluding that the appellate court could further increase its review power simply by characterizing certain issues as "legal" rather than "factual." A close analysis of the Dupree and Google decisions themselves--and a sound understanding of the structure of appellate decision-making--reveals that the labels of law and fact are ill-suited to assessing questions of issue preservation and appellate deference. This Article details those shortcomings and argues for a more coherent approach to both questions. Rather than characterizing the "issue" being appealed, courts should focus on the decisional "outcome" for that issue. Regarding issue preservation, courts should inquire whether the outcome of a pretrial ruling had conclusively resolved an issue such that there is no need for a further decision on that issue at trial. If so, that ruling may be appealed regardless of whether the party took additional steps at trial to reassert its position. With respect to appellate deference, what matters is the analytical outcome reached by the appellate court in conducting its review. The appellate court can always articulate generalizable principles independently when those principles are part of its decisional analysis. But where it would merely impose a different ultimate result than the trial judge or jury, reversal should require heightened justification.

First Page

1

Last Page

42

Num Pages

42

Volume Number

110

Issue Number

1

Publisher

University of Iowa College of Law

Recommended Citation

Adam N. Steinman, Law, Fact, and Appellate Review, 110 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/2150

File Type

PDF