If a trial court issues a ruling you believe was wrong in Washington State, appealing the decision may be an option. However, you should keep in mind that the appellate court reviews the lower court’s decision through a specific lens known as the “standard of review.”This is as opposed to conducting a new trial. 

The standard of review that applies to your case determines how much deference the appellate court gives to the original ruling. Some standards are more favorable to the party appealing, while others make it considerably harder to get a decision overturned. Learning about which standard applies is one of the most important parts of building a compelling appeal.

Why Is the Standard of Review Important?

Not every error at the trial level will result in a reversal on appeal. The standard of review essentially sets the bar for how significant the error must be before the appellate court will step in and change the outcome.

In practical terms, this means two cases with very similar facts could produce very different results on appeal depending on the type of issue being raised. A legal question is reviewed much differently than a factual finding, and a discretionary ruling is treated differently still. Knowing which standard governs each issue in your case helps your attorney craft the most effective argument.

De Novo Review for Questions of Law

When the issue on appeal involves a pure question of law, Washington appellate courts apply what is called de novo review. This is the most favorable standard for the party bringing the appeal because the court does not give any deference to the trial judge’s conclusion. Instead, it examines the legal question independently and reaches its own answer.

De novo review commonly applies in situations such as:

• Interpreting the meaning of a statute or regulation
• Determining whether a legal standard was applied correctly
• Addressing constitutional questions raised during the case
• Deciding whether the trial court had proper jurisdiction

Cases that turn on legal errors tend to have the best prospects on appeal.

Abuse of Discretion for Trial Court Rulings

Many decisions a trial judge makes during the course of a case are considered discretionary. These include rulings on things like whether to admit certain evidence and whether to grant continuances. On appeal, these decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.

This is a harder standard to meet. The appellate court will only overturn a discretionary ruling if the trial judge’s decision was unreasonable or based on improper grounds or reasoning. In other words, it is not enough to show that the appellate court would have decided differently. You must show that the judge made a decision that was not legally justified under the circumstances.

Substantial Evidence Review for Factual Findings

When a case is tried before a judge rather than a jury (known as a bench trial), the judge issues findings of fact as part of the decision. On appeal, those findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.

Under this framework, the appellate court asks a straightforward question: is there enough evidence in the record to support what the trial judge found? The court is not weighing the evidence for itself or deciding who was more credible. It is simply looking at whether a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence presented.

How Do These Standards Apply in Different Types of Cases?

What determines the standard of review in any given legal case is the nature of the issue being raised. For example, in a personal injury appeal you might argue:

• The trial court misinterpreted the comparative negligence statute (de novo review)
• The judge improperly excluded a key piece of evidence at trial (abuse of discretion)
• The factual findings in a bench trial were not supported by the record (substantial evidence)

Each of those arguments would be evaluated under its own standard, even though they all arise from the same case. 

Filing an Appeal in Washington State

If you believe a trial court ruling was incorrect, time is a critical factor. Under the Washington Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP), a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days of the entry of the final judgment. Missing that deadline can result in losing your right to appeal entirely, regardless of how persuasive your arguments might be.

Washington’s appellate system is divided into the Court of Appeals, which has three regional divisions, and the Washington Supreme Court. Most appeals begin at the Court of Appeals level. 

Contact Appellate Counsel, P.C. to schedule a free consultation with an Experienced Seattle Appellate Attorney

Appeals require a different skill set than trial work. As a result, it’s wise to seek advice from a lawyer who specializes in Washington appellate cases specifically. Reach out to a Seattle appellate lawyer at Appellate Counsel, P.C. today for a free consultation at (360) 660-1077 to learn more about your legal rights and options going forward.